I've been pretty cautious in my predictions regarding movement of the priority date bill in the Senate despite its relatively easy passage in the House last night by a 20 to 1 margin. That's because the Senate tends to move slowly, filibuster rules raise the threshhold for how many votes are needed and a single Senator can place roadblocks in front of legislation without having to have a particularly good reason. Nevertheless, the NY Times reports this morning:
The bill seemed likely to pass easily in the Senate, said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, a leading Democrat on immigration.
In light of the comments from my last post on 3012 by those upset about not dealing with DREAM and other bills dealing with illegal immigration, a couple of quotes from the Times story are interesting.
Mr. Chaffetz said he had tried to find a sweet spot, even if small, where lawmakers from both parties could come together to fix the legal immigration system, which is widely acknowledged to be broken. The bill does not address illegal immigration, nor does it add any new visas to the system, which many Republicans, including Mr. Smith, are reluctant to do.
“I campaigned in Utah on the idea that we can never solve our illegal immigration woes without fixing legal immigration,” Mr. Chaffetz said Tuesday.
I'm not sure I agree that we can't work on both issues simultaneously, but this is better than rhetoric we typically hear on the right that simply say "enforce, enforce, enforce."
It's also interesting that some of the biggest sopporters of measures helping illegally present immigrants sided with 3012.
Joining as sponsors were several Democrats who are outspoken liberals on immigration, including Representatives Luis V. Gutierrez of Illinois and Zoe Lofgren of California.
*****
Mr. Gutierrez said: “We need bigger fixes to our legal immigration system so that employers and families use official channels, not black-market ones. We want people to go through the system, not around it.”
Gery,
I get what you are trying to say and I agree with your concern and frustration about illegal immigration and the responses that have been generated from various reps and senators regarding it.
However, HR 3012 is NOT about illegal immigration. It is ONLY about legal immigration and that too about those high skilled potential-immigrants who have already arrived in United States after satisfying the other stringent requirements that need to be satisfied to get here.
You may say that because this bill does NOT address illegal immigration, it is worthless. That, IMHO, wont be the right approach. And that is also why this bill got over 96% approval in the house vote. The understanding here was- Just because we cant come to an agreement about fixing issue A, doesnt mean we cannot work towards fixing issue B. For so many years, Democrats specially, have been clubbing the whole issue together and have been harping about "Comprehensive" immigration reform. Well... you know what... nothing comprehensive can happen in this environment today...not debt talks... not budgets... and not immigration. What this bill does is pick up one minor piece that has a big impact and changes it for the better. (Actually, it "removes" an existing archaic provision in law that makes no sense in today's economy). Hope that takes away any concern you may have about this bill and "illegal" immigration. We need more from lawmakers when it comes to illegal immigration, but that and HR3012 are two completely separate issues. I can guarantee you about one thing, both who support and oppose HR3012 are vehemently against illegal immigration.
Posted by: Bob Woods | December 05, 2011 at 05:47 PM
I find the statement made by Mr. Gutierrez to be very contradicting:
Mr. Gutierrez said: “We need bigger fixes to our legal immigration system so that employers and families use official channels, not black-market ones. We want people to go through the system, not around it.”
He want people to go through the system, not around it, well why does he opposed the AL, GA, AZ, UT, and SC new immigration laws? He supports illegal immigrants more than he supports US citizens. I have yet to see him talking about how he will help the under privilege American, the unemployed veterans, and about the financial burden cause by illegal immigrants to every State that makes me question his own statement.
Posted by: Gery | December 05, 2011 at 07:37 AM
Limbo and others - IV has never paid a penny to me so if you think that's why I've voiced my view that institutionalized nationality discrimination is wrong keep searching.
Posted by: Greg Siskind | December 05, 2011 at 03:42 AM
Limbo, when did you apply for your GC ? Capricorn clearly stated that if you had not applied before 2006, you are lying ! Your next reply should have that date !
How come First come First serve policy be discriminating ?
Why do you think Employment based immigration has to have diversity ? Should it be called Diversity based employment immigration rather ? Does it make sense for US to have it ?
What is the purpose of diversity based Immigration , which already exists and in which India and china are excluded ?
Posted by: truth | December 05, 2011 at 02:25 AM
Capricorn,
Part of the problem is I posted as "NoToHR3012". Since this site doesn't have a log in, you can make your post name anything you want. I will always use "limbo" from now on to avoid confusion
Leo said:
"3/ And in-your-face racism: which his/her entire post is a good example of. "
I don't know how much clearer the accusation of racism could be.
I first applied for H-1 in 2001. You accuse me of lying when you don't know what I've been through.
Someone just told me that Mr. Siskind is on the payroll of I.V. and helping them with HR3012. If that is true, then he is just doing his job, but I wouldn't expect him to do anything but advocate for it's passage. The fact he is allowing dissenting opinion on his blog shows he is being as fair as he can be under the circumstances.
I can tell you that the feeling among the majority of ROW applicants is that the green card process is being unfairly monopolized by people from India. Namely that Indian owned firms in the U.S. favor candidates from India, which gives Indians an unfair advantage over candidates from other countries who do not enjoy some kind of cultural connections like that to help them get an H-1. This feeling is very widespread, along with the belief that the over subscription problem is largely due tech workers clogging the system after being hired by these India based consulting companies. Now this huge bulge of EB3 cases from India will make everyone from countries with a small number of immigrants wait seemingly forever.
I'm just telling you why ROWers feel that they are being screwed over, while the nepotism, cronyism and cultural favoritism within the Indian community is being rewarded.
Of course many people from India in EB3 are deserving of their place in line, so this viewpoint is not fair to them.
Posted by: Limbo | December 04, 2011 at 09:19 PM
Limbo,
I read the thread below and not sure what part of what Christina or Leo said that make it sound that opposing HR3012 is racist. Not at all. I support HR 3012 but I don't think you are racist if you oppose it.
It seems arguing via online comments is turning this issue on all sides. These policies impacts lives in a big manner for most people, and in this case, officially, "high skilled" people. So a lot going around. And if we both are on opposite sides because this bill impacts us both, I cannot convince you, and you cannot convince me.
I have never studied philosophy or logic, but reading the thread, and your reply too, I dont see those opposing HR3012 giving any real reasons why and how the existing archaic law helps the United States or its economy or for that matter, its diversity, in ANY manner. As is said the in the reply before yours, you really are not talking facts... you now have another "comment in the discussion" which talks about racism, philosophy, and someone's arrogance and ego, with use of the phrase "Seriously?". All these phrases, sentences put together in an argument dont make that argument any more valid. HR3012 got a 96% approval in the house not because corporations are paying money to those "thieves" called "representative", but because there are still sane minds in congress who know how to agree on things to take one small step forward for the US economy.
Talking of you not talking any facts - You say you've been in this immigration mess since 2001? Really? Or as you said, "seriously?". If you are not from China/India, you should have only had to wait if you were in the queue AFTER Jan 2006 (per this month's visa bulletin that can found at: http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5603.html). Any time before that, and you should have your green card by now. So again, that's a white lie right there. Just because you landed in United States in 2001 to study or work, and never started your green card process, doesn't mean that you have been in the "immigration mess". And oh... those people whom you incorrectly accuse of calling you racist, if they started their green card process in july 2002, they are still waiting for their green card, even if everything else is the same between you and them, except for where you both were born. So yeah, you could have started your process in Dec 2005, and you would have been fine today, and the other guy could have started 3.5 years before you, and he is still waiting today.
Next time you want to ask others if they took a class in logic, please use logic in the arguments you place.
HR 3012 is a tiny, tiny, step to bring back a little bit of advantage back to the American companies, and bring fairness to the employment based immigration process.
Posted by: Capricorn | December 04, 2011 at 07:52 PM
Christina,
I am sick and tired of being called racist when I say anything negative about HR3012. I abhor any form of racism, and it is insulting and unnecessary to always have that term thrown at you when discussing the merits of HR3012. Did you ever study elementary philosophy or logic? It's a fallacy called ad hominem, and it's only purpose is to avoid looking at the facts.
The country cap is not discriminatory because all countries have the same cap. It would be discriminatory if it gave one country a bigger allotment that another country. In fact, as I pointed out the caps will remain in FB immigrations.Perhaps we should do away with affirmative action too?
Apparently you think of yourself as the ultimate arbiter and judge of the points I've made. How condescending and arrogant. People negatively affected by HR3012 only have to convince enough senators to stop the bill. Your opinion, complete with your puffed up ego, is irrelevant. What makes you an expert on the American immigration system? Seriously? I know the system because I have been stuck in it since 2001.
We in EB ROW, Mexico and Philippines feel disenfranchised and we don't need approval from the likes of you to fight for our rights and explain the realities of EB to those who don't understand.
Posted by: Limbo | December 04, 2011 at 06:53 PM
Dear "NoToHR3012"... you wrote: "If country caps are racist, they why are they left in family based immigration?"
Is this all you have left to argue about? When you couldn't reply back to real comments from Leo, you distort the words he wrote and call "country caps racist"!!!
This is not rocket science. This is as simple as it can get and you already know the answer. So find a new way to argue about HR 3012, than "spread the confusion", because this path of yours wont convince anyone.
As for why leave them in family based immigration?? One word reply... a word that you will AGAIN try to confuse the readers with HR3012 and employment based immigration... and the word is "Diversity". The reason why diversity is a non-issue for employment based immigration is because the much smaller number of immigrants coming in from employment based as opposed to family based. In family based, forget about "country" cap.... there is no cap at all when bringing in dependent children and parents of US citizens.
This is the whole drama behind the arguments who are opposing HR 3012, that you bring in issues that have NOTHING to do with this bill and talk up the "damaging effects", when in reality, these don't exist. Both sides, those who support and those who oppose HR 3012, understand the importance of diversity when it comes to family based immigration for the health of the US population in years/decades to come. But when the number of employment based immigrants is so much smaller, and when the employers are - BY LAW - NOT to discriminate based on country of origin, and will also never do that for their own success, there shouldn't be country caps for employment based immigration. Those employees from India and China are ALREADY HERE... they came here legally following the rules. Just like anyone from Peru or Germany or Poland or Belgium or Pakistan, these people are here because their employers deem them worthwhile and bright enough to support them. There is no reason why any "group" should have to wait longer than the others when it doesn't help United States in any manner.
The cap in family based immigration DOES HELP United States maintain diversity. And these are two completely different aspects of the whole immigration policy. HR 3012 does NOT impact the whole immigration policy... only one simple aspect.
As I said, this is not rocket science. So STOP spreading false facts and STOP spreading hatred. For its economic future, America must attract the best and brightest it can get, regardless of where they were born.
Posted by: Christina Whitman | December 04, 2011 at 02:28 PM
Leo,
If country caps are racist, they why are they left in family based immigration?
Posted by: NoToHR3012 | December 04, 2011 at 10:35 AM
The previous commentator, NoToHR3012, typifies the opposition to an essentially perfect bill that is H.R.3012.
How do you malign a bill that ensures fairness (i.e. a first in first out policy), justice (offering to reduce wait times for individuals waiting 8-10 years for a green card with their lives on hold), US productivity (by giving US employers quicker access to a large already-working-in-US talent pool)?
Answer:
1/ Outright lies: "EB2 ROW will be retrogressed for years while the number of green cards given to EB3 India
gets a massive increase.".
As a result of the bill, EB2 ROW (as well as EB2 India and China) will still get their green cards years ahead of EB3 India.
2/ Unsubstantiated facts: "how many people in EB3 India used labor sub to get an early priority date, and avoid having to do labor certification? Likely tens of thousands"
3/ And in-your-face racism: which his/her entire post is a good example of.
Posted by: Leo | December 04, 2011 at 09:00 AM
A lot of the arguments being put forward to support HR3012 don't hold water once you really analyze them.
If this is purely about merit, then why would you want a bill that shifts green cards from EB2 ROW to EB3 India? That is exactly the effect of this bill. EB2 ROW will be retrogressed for years while the number of green cards given to EB3 India
gets a massive increase.
As for FIFO processing, how many people in EB3 India used labor sub to get an early priority date, and avoid having to do labor certification? Likely tens of thousands.
If discrimination based on country of origin is wrong, then why is it OK for the big Indian IT companies operating in the U.S. to hire workers almost exclusively from India? Shouldn't the jobs go to the most qualified workers regardless of country of origin?
Posted by: NoToHR3012 | December 04, 2011 at 07:52 AM
INT,
You wrote:
"Discrimination? Over the last years India has received more work permits and more green cards through Employment than any other country in the world. Even if HR 3012 doesn't pass, India will continue to receive more green cards through employment than any other country in the world for many years to come. And you think that's discrimination?
I disagree with you. I think having discrimination is having one country consume 85% of the green cards through employment and leaving some countries with less than 1%."
Discrimination is NOT when a "COUNTRY" consumes the green cards. Discrimination is by people, on people.
It is not "this" Indian or "that" Chinese professional's crime that he be made to wait 7 years while a Peruvian or Pakistani get his green card in 7 months, where every thing among the 4 is the same except for their country of origin. "Too many blacks already live in this neighborhood, so I won't let any more blacks live here" IS DISCRIMINATION and is a crime in this beautiful country. It is NOT that one black man's fault that he wants to live in that neighborhood. If the law prohibits (rightly) such a behavior, if the law prohibits employers from discriminating over country of origin, if the law does NOT restrict letting "LEGAL" professionals from coming and working in United States based on their country of origin (no country cap on the 65,000 annual H1B limit), THEN WHY SHOULD THE LAW HAVE A COUNTRY CAP ON THE SAME PROFESSIONALS WHEN ITS TIME TO APPLY FOR THE GREEN CARD?
Seriously... don't now mention "diversity". Rhe percentage of employment based green cards from all the green cards given every year is such a small number that saying that this bill changes diversity is a really poor joke.
I understand that the reason for a law can be whatever the lawmakers decide, but if the existing law does NOT serve the US economy in any way, it should not be changed so that it further supports the United States economy.
HR 3012 is about fairness... fairness that is the heart of this country in everything it does.
Posted by: Christina Whitman | December 03, 2011 at 10:23 PM
If it is not passed this year then it has to be re introduced again in house and pass there. Also effective date will be from oct 2012 instead of 2011. So if it is not passed this year then more uncertanity
Posted by: Mike | December 03, 2011 at 04:17 PM
"Do we have enough time this year? When Senate schedule ends on this year?"
My understanding is that the year is not important since the same Senate/House is going to be around next year. It would have been different if this were 2012. Greg, is that correct?
Posted by: Sid | December 03, 2011 at 02:56 PM
"Can Senate move this bill even Mr Grassley refuse to remove the Hold."
A "Hold" can be removed by 60 Senators voting to override it.
Posted by: USC | December 03, 2011 at 01:39 PM
Dear Mr. Siskind,
What is your opinion about the chance of passing the bill on this year given that Mr Grassley put a Hold. Can Senate move this bill even Mr Grassley refuse to remove the Hold. Do we have enough time this year? When Senate schedule ends on this year? Looks like IV is still confident of passage of this bill this year.
Posted by: Mike | December 03, 2011 at 12:22 PM
For Those who are opposing the bill, Do they have any reason?
Are they able to think logically?
There are two different kind of Visa, One if DV(Diversified Visa) and another is EB(employment Visa). Then why do you need Country Quota in EB Visa. Country quota is convincing in case of DV visa. If it is EB visa then it should always be first come first serve.
If a country have good skillful persons then they will get more visa. USA has good process of verifying the skilled person, Like PERM and I140. I don't what logic you could have after this.
Posted by: Sujoy Chowdhury | December 03, 2011 at 10:34 AM
There have been reports that pres. Obama is eagerly waiting to sign this HR 3012 into law to appease China and create jobs for, guess what… No, not Americans, Latinos? Not even close, try Indians.
Posted by: PROOBAMA | December 03, 2011 at 05:55 AM
The logic behind the bill being fair is as follows
Employment should be based on meritocracy similar to sports or anything competitive.
A popular misconception is jobs have be taken over by Indians and Chinese but the truth is they competed harder.Competition to gain foreign talent begins with the education system and it is natural for it to continue into the workforce.Search for filings for intellectual property created by foreign nationals born in India or China,compare the number of startups created by nationals from India or china,look at tax contributions,benefits to American communities (doctors,engineers,lawyers,nurses) the answer would be that USA has gained the most due to immigrants from these two countries in particular.The laws need to reflect the reality of 2011 and can't be stuck in time.
Posted by: James | December 02, 2011 at 08:48 PM
"Both Sa and Marco Polo are correct. If Sa is from India he is talking for him to remove country cap to get green card faster. If Marco Polo is Row then he is thinking that country quota is not discriminatory based on number of grren cards two countries are getting. So it is upto American people or their reps to decide. In house or Senate they can easily pass a bill if corporations and one side of group lobby with money and politics whether it is right or wrong. Though HR3012 is removing discriminatory quota passing a bill with just a few minutes of discussion is not the right way.It should be debated well. It got bi partisan support by increasing quota in family based category. That is a pure politics to get latino and hispanic votes. So there is nothing wrong in putting hold by Grassley.Procedures like Hold and Fillibuster are neccessary to prevent urgent passage of bad bills though there is a delay in good bills also.
Most likely this bill will not be passed in this year. Next year it may come with amendments in Senate."
Logic of "I will be biased if I have interest" itself is wrong.
Posted by: Sa | December 02, 2011 at 04:05 PM
Both Sa and Marco Polo are correct. If Sa is from India he is talking for him to remove country cap to get green card faster. If Marco Polo is Row then he is thinking that country quota is not discriminatory based on number of grren cards two countries are getting. So it is upto American people or their reps to decide. In house or Senate they can easily pass a bill if corporations and one side of group lobby with money and politics whether it is right or wrong. Though HR3012 is removing discriminatory quota passing a bill with just a few minutes of discussion is not the right way.It should be debated well. It got bi partisan support by increasing quota in family based category. That is a pure politics to get latino and hispanic votes. So there is nothing wrong in putting hold by Grassley.Procedures like Hold and Fillibuster are neccessary to prevent urgent passage of bad bills though there is a delay in good bills also.
Most likely this bill will not be passed in this year. Next year it may come with amendments in Senate.
Carefully read the statment of Grassley
"I have concerns about the impact of this bill on future immigration flows," he said, "and am concerned that it does nothing to better protect Americans at home who seek high-skilled jobs during this time of record high unemployment"
Grassley may insist some amendments for preventing h1B abuse for passing this bill. Will Immigration voice or Corporations are in a position to accept that? They will think status quo will be better than losing something.
The above are best guss based on past occurences. So Indians can be optimistic only by assuming that this time it is different. Let us wait and see
Posted by: Mike | December 02, 2011 at 03:51 PM
"Those of us who are non-US citizens don't really have the right to weigh in. It's sort of inappropriate because we are biased, we have an interest in the outcome and we are not in a position to state what is in the best interests of the United States. It's not our home, until we are sworn in. As such, we are hardly in a position to decide who the dinner guests should be. "
I used to think same way until an American friend of mine told me , if you cant speak for yourself nobody else ever will.
Posted by: Sa | December 02, 2011 at 03:26 PM
It is difficult to distinguish between what ought to be done in general (eliminating discrimination) and what many of us would like to happen, because the issue affects us personally. Consider the following:
1. Nobody knows what the right thing to do is, objectively. This is the United States of America, and it is up to the people of the United States to decide, through their Congress, who they want to admit as immigrants. Greg is a citizen, and he has an opinion, as do many other people. But, nobody has yet presented a conclusive argument why having or removing the caps is wrong. On the one hand, Indians and Chinese have to wait. So what? On the other hand, Iceland only sends a few immigrants each year. Once again, so what? Who can offer a convincing argument? And, what values or principles would you base your decision on? Values change and tend to be rather personal to any decision-maker or opinion holder.
If Congress decides tomorrow that only Chinese citizens who speak English, can play poker and have at least one level 80 character in World of Warcraft can immigrate to the United States, that would be a perfectly legal thing to do and it would be Congress' prerogative to make this the law of the land.
Is it discrimination? Yes. Is it wrong? It depends on who you ask.
2. Those of us who are non-US citizens don't really have the right to weigh in. It's sort of inappropriate because we are biased, we have an interest in the outcome and we are not in a position to state what is in the best interests of the United States. It's not our home, until we are sworn in. As such, we are hardly in a position to decide who the dinner guests should be.
3. Indians and Chinese think the system sucks because they have to wait a long time. It's true. On the other hand, it would also suck for anyone from ROW EB2 who would have to go from no wait time at all to a retrogression of 1-2-3-4-5 years, or however long this may be.
It is logical to complain because we all have an interest in the outcome. Some people show themselves to be racist in the process, but many are not. They just think it sucks that they would have to wait longer.
ROW applicants hope this bill will fail. If it does, many can probably get their GC relatively soon, barring other unexpected delays. As for the right thing to do, Greg is probably right. But, I suspect that, for many, it is difficult to think of the objective decision, as we have such a high interest in the outcome.
Posted by: Marco Polo | December 02, 2011 at 03:19 PM
@usk:
HR3012 just takes from A to give to B. It is not a surprise that such a thing would divide the immigrant community.
The real solution would be to increase the GC numbers.
For example, taking the GCs for dependents out of the GC number calculation would have been a much better way to deal with the backlog.
Posted by: JoeF | December 02, 2011 at 12:46 PM
Kuhelica - I proudly serve as an adviser to Immigration Voice and I'm involved with a number of other pro-immigration organizations like AILA and ImmigrationWorksUSA. I was not involved with any advocacy work on this issue, but I certainly have made it clear I support it since I'm against discrimination in our immigration system. My role with Immigration Voice is a voluntary one as well so I don't exactly get your point. I volunteer for organizations whose views I support. Furthermore, this is not IV's bill. IV has worked on this issue, but complaints about this subject predate IV's existence and a lot of people not involved with IV support it. Why do you think it passed 20 to 1 in the House? If you want to be productive, work to get overall green card numbers increased.
Posted by: Greg SIskind | December 02, 2011 at 11:22 AM
TandaUTAH,
If you go out of country 10 persons are waiting in India to replace you by H1b,L1,F1 and other visas. See the breakup of H1b and F1 for past 5 years. Percentage of Indians are increasng. So everyone knew that brain drain talk will not work out unless economy improves.
Posted by: Mike | December 02, 2011 at 11:03 AM
Dear Mr. Siskind,
Don't you think it is important to disclose in this article that your are an advisor for Immigration Voice as per Immigration Voices's website.
Posted by: Kuhelica | December 02, 2011 at 10:48 AM
On Dec 1st, after Senator Grassley placed a hold on the bill, I took the day off to start my search for a future in Australia and Canada. It was quite easy to qualify for their equivalent of high skilled permanent residency. While I am sure that it will be quite easy to immigrate to these destinations, I have significant investments material and otherwise in this country and it would be a tough choice. If I dont see light at the end of the tunnel in terms of a green card, the choice will become easier.
I would like to see this bill (HR 3012) pass through the senate by the end of this year
We, as a country, have to figure out if we want to lose out our competitive edge through a brain drain
Posted by: TandaUTAH | December 02, 2011 at 10:39 AM
Usk,
Because of limited green card numbers the waiting time is increasing. Because Indians and Chinese are interested in coming to USA the waiting time is increasing. The best solution will be increase the green card numbers. Removing country quota removes discrimination but still that takes benefit out of other countries.So the opposition from other countries are understandable.Also you are coming to USA on the expectation that there are problems in H1b and Green card.So there is no surprise in this. If green card numbers are doubled then no need to remove the country quota.Because of inablity of increasing green cards immigration voice and some other immigrant groups are lobbying for removal of country quota. The effort and methodology was good so that it was passed in House. But increasing family quota also played a role in passage of the bill in house. But it will face big hurdle in Senate due to obvious reasons which cannot be given in public and also politics. If passed in Senate then huge victory mainly for immigration voice and Indian/Chinese immigrants but it creates division between India/China Vs other country immigrants. But if fails in this year and next year all of the effort will be waste and that time analysis will be different.
Posted by: Mike | December 02, 2011 at 10:32 AM
I have lived in the US for 10 years. Did my masters, working, law abiding, tax payimg. Still do not have a green card because of per country limit. My family has totally embraced this culture. Now tell me what else do i need to do to get a green card. For people who do not support 3012, pls tell us what to do and how to solve this issue?
Posted by: usk | December 02, 2011 at 09:36 AM
"I disagree with you. I think having discrimination is having one country consume 85% of the green cards through employment and leaving some countries with less than 1%."
I do not know what background you are. However, you sound like the white people I have arguments with and who are not consistent. These whites have no problems if 85% of the jobs or even 100% of all jobs are given to white people if they are better qualified. There are jobs in the Alabama government with 100% white employees all got through sorority and fraternity connections. But, tell these whites that there should be no country quotas, they will bring the fairness argument. I have no idea whether these Alabama whites are all meritorious candidates. But, based on their recent immigration laws and anti-civil rights stance, I really doubt it, but that is one man's opinion. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is full of white Americans many of whom cannot even do simple arithmetic..however, they say that these are the best available Americans....the kind Grassley wants us to employ first before giving jobs to better qualified foreigners. But, talk to them about lifting country quotas...they prefer affirmative action over there. If you are for affirmative action, you can support country quotas for skilled workers. However, if you think affirmative action is wrong but you support country quotas and diversity visas, your goal is to keep white majority in this country as long as possible. That is evidently the goal of FAIR, CIS and most of Manhattan Institute and Tom Tancredo and Pat Buchanan openly say so. You cannot be both against Affirmative Action and country quotas.
Posted by: George Chell | December 02, 2011 at 06:40 AM
"Sure, it is great. Quite OK if Indians and Chinese wait 12 years. Not OK if Australians and Europeans do. Another inventive reason to discriminate. This is getting better. This creativity at least suggests that the initial "discrimination" argument has fallen flat."
Discrimination? Over the last years India has received more work permits and more green cards through Employment than any other country in the world. Even if HR 3012 doesn't pass, India will continue to receive more green cards through employment than any other country in the world for many years to come. And you think that's discrimination?
I disagree with you. I think having discrimination is having one country consume 85% of the green cards through employment and leaving some countries with less than 1%.
Posted by: INT | December 02, 2011 at 06:19 AM
"Actually, this may be a good way, but not the best. The best (in my opinion) would be not to count those who worked in the US for a certain period of time against the quota. This way, the line will pretty much stop at that mark. The logic behind it is that those who already work in the US are not really being hired to replace Americans. That's kind the whole premise of the quota, and those who work in the US already should not really fall into the quoted category."
Well, technically, the GC is for a job in the future, i.e., when the GC is approved. There quite a number of people who have never worked for the GC sponsor. Of course, that only made sense when the time was 1/2 year max. No employer can keep a job open for years. Yet another thing that would need cleanup. And all these piecemeal things of course result in inconsistencies in the law, that then tend to get resolved through expensive court cases that also last years.
The current mess is the result of such piecemeal legislation over the year, which tries to solve some immediate problem, but usually does it badly, and then has unintended consequences which requires more piecemeal legislation, ad infinitum...
We are likely to end up with the immigration equivalent of the tax code, which is so bad that basically everybody violates some part of the law (I had some interesting discussion with somebody who worked for IRS for 2+ decades...)
Posted by: JoeF | December 01, 2011 at 09:56 PM
Thank you internet! So many true colors. If some one has lived in the country long enough to be considered a resident for tax purposes and have to report worldwide income, why can't a similar scheme be enacted for immigration purposes?
Is this too much common sense for Congress to come up? I know what George will say and could not agree more with him....
Posted by: Legal_1x10^9 | December 01, 2011 at 06:36 PM
"How is my life going to improve by their being here?"
How are you improving any ones life being anywhere? Not everyone is Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Mother Teresa. Just look at yourself in the mirror everyday and ask that question to yourself.
Posted by: Life | December 01, 2011 at 05:38 PM
"How is my life going to improve by their being here?"
By the way Don, everything is not about you. Other American Citizens of different (bottom feeder?) descent have voices and needs as well. In case you missed it, this is not a white majority country anymore. The good old days are exactly those- old.
This culture of self entitlement is exactly what brought you this Congress and this mess. They are a reflection of you. Perhaps you should take some responsibility? Or is that word only for the bottom feeders?
Posted by: RT | December 01, 2011 at 03:32 PM
"I agree with you, HR 3012 may be fair if you narrow your focus only to immigration into the US, but from a global international affairs perspective you can also argue that it would be fair to provide more visas to the countries that provide more visas to Americans, don't you think?"
Sure, it is great. Quite OK if Indians and Chinese wait 12 years. Not OK if Australians and Europeans do. Another inventive reason to discriminate. This is getting better. This creativity at least suggests that the initial "discrimination" argument has fallen flat.
Posted by: RT | December 01, 2011 at 03:26 PM
"Undying gratitude to the "Americans" in the Senate! Just what we want and need...more bottom-feeding family members of Mexicans and Filipinos! Let's see now, what exactly do they contribute to the country? How is my life going to improve by their being here? Whose lives, other than theirs, will improve by their being here? Once again, Congress, our "representatives", have thrust the knife in our backs and acted completely in opposition to the will of the American people. We have to remember their names and make them pay for this treason in the next elections. Any senator who voted to expand the quotas for Mexican and Filipino family members has betrayed the trust placed in him/her by their constituents!
"
I can be much harsher in my response but I will leave it to others on this forum.
They are family members of American citizens. Family based immigration is part of American tradition , as much as you don't like it , it will continue be part of immigration.
Good luck with rolling back family based immigration.
Again , I agree with you on one thing. Yes , We need to replace 90 % of the Congress if we need any change in this country.
Posted by: A | December 01, 2011 at 03:24 PM
Thank you Don for presenting the true racist face of the anti crowd.
From now we don't want to hear how skin color is not the root of xenophobia.
Remember, total number is the same. Just more Mexicans and Filipinos to ease their enormous waiting times. So your problem is not "more" it is "more Mexicans and Filipinos" who by definition (yours) are "bottom feeding". Good going "true American".
Posted by: RT | December 01, 2011 at 03:23 PM
Undying gratitude to the "Americans" in the Senate! Just what we want and need...more bottom-feeding family members of Mexicans and Filipinos! Let's see now, what exactly do they contribute to the country? How is my life going to improve by their being here? Whose lives, other than theirs, will improve by their being here? Once again, Congress, our "representatives", have thrust the knife in our backs and acted completely in opposition to the will of the American people. We have to remember their names and make them pay for this treason in the next elections. Any senator who voted to expand the quotas for Mexican and Filipino family members has betrayed the trust placed in him/her by their constituents!
Posted by: Don Miller | December 01, 2011 at 02:49 PM
"There are over a million Americans living in Europe, many more than those living in countries like India or China. Some European Countries, and other countries like Australia, provide thousands of work permits to American immigrants and provide a relatively short path to permanent residency. Do you think that it is fair for a country like Germany, France, Spain or Australia that their citizens would need to wait over 12 years to obtain permanent residency in the US, when these countries provide permanent residency permits to many Americans in 1-2 years?
I agree with you, HR 3012 may be fair if you narrow your focus only to immigration into the US, but from a global international affairs perspective you can also argue that it would be fair to provide more visas to the countries that provide more visas to Americans, don't you think?
"
Going by this definition of fairness , Countries like Saudi Arabia and Dubai , they never grant citizenship or residency to lot of foreigners . So should US and other countries ban immigration from these countries alltogether?
USA had unlimited immigration from Europe based on skin color for centuries. During this time , Immigration was the privilege only for white people from Europe.
Posted by: Sa | December 01, 2011 at 01:33 PM
Mr. Siskind,
There are over a million Americans living in Europe, many more than those living in countries like India or China. Some European Countries, and other countries like Australia, provide thousands of work permits to American immigrants and provide a relatively short path to permanent residency. Do you think that it is fair for a country like Germany, France, Spain or Australia that their citizens would need to wait over 12 years to obtain permanent residency in the US, when these countries provide permanent residency permits to many Americans in 1-2 years?
I agree with you, HR 3012 may be fair if you narrow your focus only to immigration into the US, but from a global international affairs perspective you can also argue that it would be fair to provide more visas to the countries that provide more visas to Americans, don't you think?
Posted by: INT | December 01, 2011 at 01:00 PM
http://www.wbez.org/story/rustbelt-city-wants-immigrants-skilled-or-not-94484
Posted by: George Chell | December 01, 2011 at 12:36 PM
"As I thought , Mr Grassley of Durbin/Grassely duo is placing a hold on the bill"
Even though I don't like this bill, for a number of reasons, it deserves better than Mr. Grassley.
Posted by: JoeF | December 01, 2011 at 10:16 AM
"The best way to approach the retrogression was to recapture the unused visas from the last 10-15 yrs & excluding dependents from EB visa count."
Actually, this may be a good way, but not the best. The best (in my opinion) would be not to count those who worked in the US for a certain period of time against the quota. This way, the line will pretty much stop at that mark. The logic behind it is that those who already work in the US are not really being hired to replace Americans. That's kind the whole premise of the quota, and those who work in the US already should not really fall into the quoted category.
Posted by: Legal and no longer waiting | December 01, 2011 at 10:06 AM
The best way to approach the retrogression was to recapture the unused visas from the last 10-15 yrs & excluding dependents from EB visa count. It would allow more skilled people to get GC's & reducing the wait times. I am from India & agree this bill is not fair to ROW immigrants.
Posted by: My 2 cents | December 01, 2011 at 09:52 AM
"Just one specific example is nurses from the Philippines who have employers waiting for them to do consular processing. The employers will likely give up on the process and their chances of coming to this country have all but disappeared after all the money and time they have invested."
The US is able to get away with it because many Filipina nurses come to this country via the marriage route, thus alleviating the shortage..but that does not mean this situation is helpful. One woman who waited for three years, eventually decided to cancel her application, got married to a US citizen and got into the country within two years. Another woman got her visa rejected so many times...she was not a nurse...that she decided to go through the mail order bride route..and ended up in Honolulu...the US consular officer who rejected her visa two times happened to run into her..he was visiting the East West Center and told her that her face looked familiar...I happened to be there and told him that he can do all he can and if someone wants to get into the country they will get in. Incidentally her visa was rejected because Filipina women have a tendency to find American husbands and hence she was an intending immigrant (Section 214b). After wasting all those US government resources to stop her from meeting an American male citizen..they could not stop her from doing it and they could not keep her out. Not a very productive use of taxpayer resources and time.
Posted by: George Chell | December 01, 2011 at 09:16 AM
Hi Greg,
Thanks for your responses. Although disappointing, at least you are interested in getting feedback from affected parties.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this fiscal year, EB3 for ROW, Mexico and Philippines will get a grand total of about 6000 visas. Since that is likely already used up, our category will go U immediately if HR3012 becomes law. The second and third years are even worse with only 4000 visas allocated to EB3 ROW, Mexico and Philippines.
Faced with this reality, those of us familiar with the way the system works know we will likely see little or no movement in EB3 for us for many years, perhaps 5 or more. Just one specific example is nurses from the Philippines who have employers waiting for them to do consular processing. The employers will likely give up on the process and their chances of coming to this country have all but disappeared after all the money and time they have invested.
I think most of us feel no one cares about our plight.
Posted by: limbo | December 01, 2011 at 08:17 AM
Actually removing country quota means not giving importance to merrit. The Labor certification and I140 approval says that the person is needed. So if we remove country quota then that means FIFO process.There is no merrit involved in this as everyone was tested by labor
Posted by: Mike | December 01, 2011 at 07:58 AM
Limbo - Actually, the bill calls for a phase in over three years precisely to address your concerns.
Posted by: Greg SIskind | December 01, 2011 at 07:26 AM
While removing per country caps (which have largely been rendered moot due to spillover rule changes) may be an honorable goal, from a practical standpoint, I think HR3012 is a disaster. How can you retroactively make this change in the middle of a fiscal year? I think it is almost certain that a huge number of visas would be wasted this year as USCIS struggles to implement this change.
Also the grandfathering is woefully inadequate. Many of us have planned our lives based on the current trajectory of the system. My wife has spent tens of thousands of dollars improving herself by getting a masters degree, but will be unable to make use of it now for many years. I can't tell you how devastated she is.
Why can't the removal of the per country caps be done in a more equitable and fair manner?
Posted by: limbo | December 01, 2011 at 07:24 AM
"They copied the language from the family based immigration laws without thinking about how chain migration among families is different from hiring based on skill. I can easily sponsor members of my family for a family based GC (once I become a citizen) with no restrictions but I cannot simply hire them to work for me."
I have to disagree on two points. First, that limiting chain migration in the family category based on the country makes sense. The argument is the same - why a brother of a US citizen from one country has to wait longer than a borther of a US citizen from a different country? Makes no sense. Second, is that there is no chain migration in the EB category. Obviously, that chain migration is not usually family-based (and sometimes it is), but many H1 holders get their jobs because they have been recommended by another H1 holder. The same is even true with those who came to the US to study - once you know somone who studied in the US, you are more likely to get info on how you can do it, too. It is also quite common for large companies that recruit globally to engage their network of employees and prospective candidates to solicit more resumes right before they go on recruiting trips to a particular country. Chain migration is how every category works (including refugees), and that's how immgration worked 100 years ago, and that's how it is going to work in the future. Nothing surprising or wrong with it.
Posted by: Legal and no longer waiting | December 01, 2011 at 06:36 AM
I really do not know what the argument is. One would hope the hiring is based on merit before application is made. If this bill allows a 2.8/4.0 GPA Indian to jump over a 4.0/4.0 South Korean, I will oppose it. Engineering corporations and medical establishments should not be hiring a 2.8/4.0 GPA student no matter what, whether he is an American or Indian or for that matter any other nationality. So, please educate me. Does this create a situation, where someone who is less qualified or less able gets the job over someone else relatively well qualified. As far as I can see, the country quotas are still in place for the same reason diversity lottery is still in place. Try to keep America majority white as long as possible and delay the inevitable! From the actions of some people, particularly in Kentucky, that is the sad conclusion that I can come to, although I still believe that Grassley's stance is driving jobs out of this country and into Canada and other Asian countries....
http://www.kentucky.com/2011/11/30/1977453/small-pike-county-church-votes.html
May be this church is concerned that if the Zimbabwean marries the US citizen, that will mean one more non-white entering the country...and the country may be well on its way to becoming a majority minority country. Actions of anti-immigration groups not criticizing foreign actors competing for far fewer jobs with Americans and criticizing a piddly 35,000 quota for Indian computer people each year, sadly makes me reach that conclusion!
Posted by: George Chell | December 01, 2011 at 05:48 AM
Limbo - Most of my fellow immigration lawyers got in to immigration law to help our clients achieve justice and be treated fairly. The cynics might think we're driven solely by money, but its bothered me for years that we have such a discriminatory system and I'm happy to see it go. The answer is not to continue making nationals from a couple of countries suffer considerably but to increase overall green card numbers and that is the battle we need to focus on next.
Posted by: Greg SIskind | December 01, 2011 at 04:40 AM
Limbo,
This was mainly lobbied by immigration voice and Syskind cannot do much about it. Many lawyers are mixed opinions about this bill many of them were neutral. If you think it is unfair you can organise persons and meet Senators to tell about your concerns. Otherwise you have to rely on Senators like Grassley. Currently Grassley had put a Hold on this bill. And more delay more chance the bill will die in this year as time is short and many bills are pending
Posted by: Mike | November 30, 2011 at 10:46 PM
Mr. Siskind,
Don't you have any EB clients from ROW, Philippines or Mexico? It seems you are advocating for this bill even though it will be a disaster for us.
Why not advocate for changes that would make the bill fair to all EB immigrants, instead of one that provides relief to EB immigrants from 2 countries at the expense of immigrants from all other countries.
Really, I just don't get it... Maybe you could explain your position to us ROWers, many of whom have employed your services over the years.
Posted by: limbo | November 30, 2011 at 09:54 PM
Nurse waiting
The employment based immigration quota was made 140k on 1990. I think it is a well thought move to give preference to the people from their allies like UK, other Europe and Isrel. Of course they might have borrowed the concept from family based. Grassley is very influential Senator and he has so much respect and Clout in USA. Of course he might be hated by so many Indian immigrants because of his stand in H1b. It is difficult to ignore him unless convince him. Let us wait and see what happens
Posted by: Mike | November 30, 2011 at 09:41 PM
Sid,
Your calculation is based on the very pessimestic estimate given by the news media.The number of green card applicants reduced siginificantly after 2008. That will have postive impact on PDs. Also currently when people are not available from other countries then India and China will get those numbers at the end of the quarter. Also the phase out will make that benefit will be very small for 3 years. So EB3 will improve max 2 to 3 years than expected wait time. Still that is better than current.
Posted by: Mike | November 30, 2011 at 09:30 PM
Who would have thought in 60's that India/China will send so many skilled immigrants? I think quota system was primarily to remove favoritism from countries in northern Europe and provide opportunity for rest of the Europe to come here, especially Kennedy's heritage. Nobody expected Asian giants to catch up like they did. Brown immigration is unintended consequence of that immigration policy.
Posted by: Nurse Waiting | November 30, 2011 at 08:07 PM
"Why it was formed when there were no need at that time when all were current? Those who formed the country quota were very smart and the reasons were so obvious."
Actually, those who wrote it were not smart but lazy. That's a pretty accurate description of most people who go to the Congress. There are people who are genuinely knowledgeable about some areas but the majority of Congressmen do not understand or read the bills that they vote on. They hire staffers and advisers for that.
They copied the language from the family based immigration laws without thinking about how chain migration among families is different from hiring based on skill. I can easily sponsor members of my family for a family based GC (once I become a citizen) with no restrictions but I cannot simply hire them to work for me.
Posted by: Sid | November 30, 2011 at 06:18 PM
"If this bill is passed Indian Eb3 has to wait 5 to 8 years compared to 9 to 10 years."
"I am from India but neutral for this bill as it will give a limited benefit to EB3I and more benefits for EB2I. "
@Mike, I don't think you've done the math. The backlog for EB3-I is already more than 9 years but it's getting progressively worse. EB3-I/C get roughly 3K visas per year. If the number of pending I-485 applications per year for EB3-I is 9K, it'll take 3 years for the PDs to move 1 year. In that scenario, the backlog increases by 2 years every 3 years. If it's 12K per year, then it increases by a year every year. These are not unrealistic numbers. The last I-485 inventory report shows that the number of pending I-485 tally for EB3-I is roughly 5K, 11K, 13K, 8K and 10K from 2002-2006. A person with a PD in 2007 is looking at a wait of at least another 10 years (15+ years total) under the current scenario. If the bill is passed, they would have to wait another 5-6 years (10-11 years total) since bill would take effect only after 3 years. I would consider 4-5 years of reduction in wait time to be a significant benefit. A lot of people are underestimating the effect of this bill on the backlogs for EB3-I/C because they think that the backlog is constant. Not true. USCIS doesn't know how many applicants are waiting to apply once the dates go beyond July 2007 again.
You're right that EB2-I will benefit more but EB2-I PD cutoff is already 6 years ahead of EB3-I so it's not like it's a close race anyway. Due to spillover, EB2-I PD has been advancing by 2 years per year compared to 4-5 months for EB3-I.
Posted by: Sid | November 30, 2011 at 06:07 PM
In the Senate it is not as easy as in House. Think of one thing. If this bill is passed Indian Eb3 has to wait 5 to 8 years compared to 9 to 10 years. Same waiting time for Europians? Isrelies? Come on?? will they allow that much easily? Everywhere in the World some type of discrimination exists. Still USA is best compared to majority of the countries though it is not ideal. Always house acts fast and the reps are elected every two years and house reps are dynamic. Senate acts slow and balanced approach. I am from India but neutral for this bill as it will give a limited benefit to EB3I and more benefits for EB2I. Country Quota is a discriminatory. No second thought about it. Why it was formed when there were no need at that time when all were current? Those who formed the country quota were very smart and the reasons were so obvious. But still there is lot of chance for passing of the bill.
Everybody got excited because Hira supported this bill. Numbers USA is neutral on this bill. Not big opposition is from Programmers Guild. But the impact of the bill is people from staunch allies of USA like UK,France also will be impacted. If they take that as the reason then it is very difficult to come for Voting in Senate. If it comes for Voting it will be passed
Posted by: Mike | November 30, 2011 at 05:30 PM
And as I thought Mr. Grassley has no brains.
Posted by: George Chell | November 30, 2011 at 03:05 PM
As I thought , Mr Grassley of Durbin/Grassely duo is placing a hold on the bill
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/node/12604
Posted by: A | November 30, 2011 at 02:41 PM
Congressman Bilbray voted yes. Many members of House Immigration Caucus voted yes.
Posted by: Sam | November 30, 2011 at 10:27 AM
Impact of Relatively Liberal US Skilled Immigration Laws?
ADP reports that 206,000 jobs were created last month in the private sector. Some are wondering where the jobs were coming from. Foreign Direct Investment. FDI is running out of Europe, and especially skilled immigrant unfriendly UK and moving into the United States, Canada, Australia and elsewhere in Asia including Hong Kong, Singapore and China. But, it seems likely that the US is the biggest beneficiary of the mess in Europe and UK's skilled immigrant unfriendly laws. Sooner stupid people like Charles Grassley recognizes this, the better it will be for all of us!
Posted by: George Chell | November 30, 2011 at 09:50 AM
It is unfortunate that our public officials continue to employ smoke and mirrors to conceal as to what is changing and how. In order, to have a fair and open debate without facts being distorted by one Special Interest group or the other a before and after version of EVERY amended bill should be posted by Congress, instead of the gobbly-dock they indulge in now.
Linked below is HR3012:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3012rh/pdf/BILLS-112hr3012rh.pdf
It is impossible to decipher as to what is going on without reference to the original Act, even with it available, it is still a time consuming task. See link to the INA below:
http://www.theodora.com/ina_96_title_2.html
Posted by: USC | November 30, 2011 at 08:59 AM