Legal Immigration Reform

[tusharvk]

AC21 was the last law, singed by Clinton, in 2000. That's 13 years ago. Everything else was administrative action. No, there was not much success in bringing up any good bills for legal-only immigrants over the last two presidents. And not IV did not try....

ok. so ac21 doled out something for illegals?

Daca is the only thing that illegals got for the last two presidents, right?

Contrast that with what legals got with admin fixes under the last administration.

It is difficult task to overhaul immigration and there is ambivalence in public and hence, congress' unwillingness to take on senate's CIR.

Some people may favor overhaul for their own interests but it is legitimate to seek some quick business and economy-growth friendly fixes that congress can sell to their constituents. Otherwise there is always the route of admin fixes that even current administration can think about.

[JoeF]

Nothing of relevance

Ahh, my stalker is back... Why am I not surprised to see you on this thread???

[catx]

Desi Dude, as I have posted previously, there is nothing wrong with advocating, lobbying, etc. for fixes and reforms for legal aliens and immigrants.  You have the freedom do so.  (An ideological argument can even be made that reforms for legal aliens and immigrants should have priority over those who are the U.S. in violation of immigration laws, regulations, and rules.)  That being said, there are a number of problems with your stated position ...

 

One, it ignores the reality and politics of immigration reform.  Simply put, reform for legal aliens and immigrants is not going to happen without reform for illegal aliens / immigrants.  Thinking otherwise is fooling yourself.

 

Two, promoting one immigrant group by putting down another immigrant group is a ‘zero sum game’ – nobody wins or more appropriately everyone loses.  As I have posted on multiple occasions, immigration reform is about are you better off because of it -- and not about what ‘relative’ benefits another group gets.  It should be a “tide that floats all boats”.  In other words, everyone should benefit some amount, even if it is not the same amount.

 

Three, your posts show a lack of understanding of the United States and its history.  As stated above, there is the reality and politics of immigration reform. Further, referring to a dictionary definition of “segregation” shows an ignorance of the meaning of the word in the American context.  (For the record, and before you criticize, over the course of almost half my life I have lived in the U.S. for 24 years, including going to grade school during which time I read and then wrote out the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights in my own words as part of an U.S. civics class.) 

[t75]

Actually,  USCs are very concerned with immigration reform and are frustrated that no one seems to be listening to us. The illegal and legal immigrants are understandably interested in their own agendas and are busy making their cases to Congress. No one in Congress cares about what the born citizens want or think our country needs.

 

Based on many years of watching (remember I am older than dirt), unless everyone is unhappy with the outcome, it is not fair.  If only one side is happy, there was too much given to them and too much taken away from the other. There are many times I think doing nothing rather doing something irreparably wrong is the right thing to do especially when the wrong is so very bad for the country as a whole.

[Belle]

ok. so ac21 doled out something for illegals?

Daca is the only thing that illegals got for the last two presidents, right?

Contrast that with what legals got with admin fixes under the last administration.

It is difficult task to overhaul immigration and there is ambivalence in public and hence, congress' unwillingness to take on senate's CIR.

Some people may favor overhaul for their own interests but it is legitimate to seek some quick business and economy-growth friendly fixes that congress can sell to their constituents. Otherwise there is always the route of admin fixes that even current administration can think about.

To propose good policy one needs to understand the difference between laws and administrative action, including their limitations, otherwise the likelihood of success is very low. I believe this is one of the things missing from the knowledge toolbox of many people here.

[Belle]

Desi Dude, as I have posted previously, there is nothing wrong with advocating, lobbying, etc. for fixes and reforms for legal aliens and immigrants.  You have the freedom do so.  (An ideological argument can even be made that reforms for legal aliens and immigrants should have priority over those who are the U.S. in violation of immigration laws, regulations, and rules.)  That being said, there are a number of problems with your stated position ...

 

One, it ignores the reality and politics of immigration reform.  Simply put, reform for legal aliens and immigrants is not going to happen without reform for illegal aliens / immigrants.  Thinking otherwise is fooling yourself.

 

Two, promoting one immigrant group by putting down another immigrant group is a ‘zero sum game’ – nobody wins or more appropriately everyone loses.  As I have posted on multiple occasions, immigration reform is about are you better off because of it -- and not about what ‘relative’ benefits another group gets.  It should be a “tide that floats all boats”.  In other words, everyone should benefit some amount, even if it is not the same amount.

 

Three, your posts show a lack of understanding of the United States and its history.  As stated above, there is the reality and politics of immigration reform. Further, referring to a dictionary definition of “segregation” shows an ignorance of the meaning of the word in the American context.  (For the record, and before you criticize, over the course of almost half my life I have lived in the U.S. for 24 years, including going to grade school during which time I read and then wrote out the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights in my own words as part of an U.S. civics class.) 

All excellent points. However, let's not forget that we should not teach certain proverbial animals to sing for two good reasons. Or as I like to say 'let them fail'.

[maverick41]

Desi Dude, as I have posted previously, there is nothing wrong with advocating, lobbying, etc. for fixes and reforms for legal aliens and immigrants.  You have the freedom do so.  (An ideological argument can even be made that reforms for legal aliens and immigrants should have priority over those who are the U.S. in violation of immigration laws, regulations, and rules.)  That being said, there are a number of problems with your stated position ...

 

One, it ignores the reality and politics of immigration reform.  Simply put, reform for legal aliens and immigrants is not going to happen without reform for illegal aliens / immigrants.  Thinking otherwise is fooling yourself.

 

Two, promoting one immigrant group by putting down another immigrant group is a ‘zero sum game’ – nobody wins or more appropriately everyone loses.  As I have posted on multiple occasions, immigration reform is about are you better off because of it -- and not about what ‘relative’ benefits another group gets.  It should be a “tide that floats all boats”.  In other words, everyone should benefit some amount, even if it is not the same amount.

 

Three, your posts show a lack of understanding of the United States and its history.  As stated above, there is the reality and politics of immigration reform. Further, referring to a dictionary definition of “segregation” shows an ignorance of the meaning of the word in the American context.  (For the record, and before you criticize, over the course of almost half my life I have lived in the U.S. for 24 years, including going to grade school during which time I read and then wrote out the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights in my own words as part of an U.S. civics class.) 

 

Excellent post!!!

[tusharvk]

As observed by someone, indeed some seniors are advocating comprehensive reform (that is not to have piecemeal for legals and illegals).

I do not consider myself senior member and beg to differ with those who say the only way to reform is comprehensive or no reform.

It is much difficult to have such reform; remember how long it took for senate to come with CIR and after its passage in the senate, house does not even want to take it up. This is reflection of ambivalence in public about conducting such reform without thinking through the ramifications.

Clearly, do nothing like CIR is better than doing a not well-understood CIR.

 

Now, piecemeal approach does not need to be held hostage to CIR. There are some sensible reforms that could be carried out to h1b and EB green card process. Examples are: providing some grace period for h1b after layoff, EAD for h4 spouses, filing 485 even if PD is not current after 140 approval and ability to exercise AC21 6 months afterwards, etc. There need to be also toughening of h1b program so that the so called "shady" consultants do not abuse their employees, curbing of misuse of l1b and EB1c, etc. The approach may be piecemeal and some can be covered in the gambit of admin action.

 

As per the employment report released last week, people with Bachelors degree or higher have a net unemployment rate of less than 4%. This is the labor pool against which h1b employee competes. So, there is even economic case for sensible h1b reform.

[Belle]

@tusharvk, I believe, you misunderstand our position. We are not against piecemeal, far from it. What we are against - for two reasons described below - is the immigrant against immigrant strategy. Of course, there will be a certain level of "who gets what" negotiation, however, basing your whole lobbying strategy by bashing other immigrants is wrong, and as I mentioned, for two reasons. First, the moral one. No, we are not better, deservier, or owed more than illegal immigrants. We were just lucky enough to be eligible for some sort of immigration status, which 90% of illegal immigrants could not get no matter how hard they worked. It's a simple understanding of reality. Second, because immigration reform is mainly about fixing the status of people who lack it (and it will be, no matter what some of us want to happen), it is particularly foolish to get of the train and piss off the conductor. You'd be left in the dust.

[JoeF]

As I said before, clean up your own backyard first before talking about "legal" immigration reform.

Just look as the recent posts from people asking about CPT. Where are you telling them that this is fraud???

Learn to look past your own rather irrelevant situation.

[tusharvk]

@tusharvk, I believe, you misunderstand our position. We are not against piecemeal, far from it. What we are against - for two reasons described below - is the immigrant against immigrant strategy. Of course, there will be a certain level of "who gets what" negotiation, however, basing your whole lobbying strategy by bashing other immigrants is wrong, and as I mentioned, for two reasons. First, the moral one. No, we are not better, deservier, or owed more than illegal immigrants. We were just lucky enough to be eligible for some sort of immigration status, which 90% of illegal immigrants could not get no matter how hard they worked. It's a simple understanding of reality. Second, because immigration reform is mainly about fixing the status of people who lack it (and it will be, no matter what some of us want to happen), it is particularly foolish to get of the train and piss off the conductor. You'd be left in the dust.

ok. just advocating some sensible fixes as discussed in my post before. Not trying to pit one person against the other (my position; not sure about OP).

There were some who advocated that legals will have to work with illegals to get something; sorry, but do not agree with this either.

Also, the implications of cir should be clear before passing it.

[JoeF]

ok. just advocating some sensible fixes as discussed in my post before. Not trying to pit one person against the other (my position; not sure about OP).

There were some who advocated that legals will have to work with illegals to get something; sorry, but do not agree with this either.

Also, the implications of cir should be clear before passing it.

The implications of a lot of laws are not clear before passing them.

If all future implications would be clear, nothing would ever get passed.

People really need to educate themselves about how decisions are made, not just political decisions, but decisions by humans. Nobody can predict the future, hence nobody can know all implications of decisions.

[tusharvk]

The implications of a lot of laws are not clear before passing them.

If all future implications would be clear, nothing would ever get passed.

People really need to educate themselves about how decisions are made, not just political decisions, but decisions by humans. Nobody can predict the future, hence nobody can know all implications of decisions.

I said implications should be clearly understood; when did I say "all future implications".

As current\future USC\PR we do not want a ill understood law to get passed (understood by people and not pushed hurriedly by senate)

[JoeF]

I said implications should be clearly understood; when did I say "all future implications".

As current\future USC\PR we do not want a ill understood law to get passed (understood by people and not pushed hurriedly by senate)

You said "the implications of cir should be clear". You didn't say "clearly understood"...

The CIR bill is clearly understood. Anybody can read it.

You may not like its implications, that's certainly your right, but others do like it, and think it's a good step in the right direction.

No bill is perfect, no bill will ever be perfect. Politics is the art of the compromise. If you don't want to compromise, please stay out of politics.

Without compromises, we get gridlock, we get government shutdowns.

[JoeF]

As current\future USC\PR we do not want a ill understood law to get passed (understood by people and not pushed hurriedly by senate)

Oh, and one thing I forgot: Who made you spokesperson for "current/future USC/PP"???

You can express your opinion, but do not claim to speak for others.

[tusharvk]

You said "the implications of cir should be clear". You didn't say "clearly understood"...

The CIR bill is clearly understood. Anybody can read it.

You may not like its implications, that's certainly your right, but others do like it, and think it's a good step in the right direction.

No bill is perfect, no bill will ever be perfect. Politics is the art of the compromise. If you don't want to compromise, please stay out of politics.

Without compromises, we get gridlock, we get government shutdowns.

You may have read and understood the bill and its implications. I am not in politics and willing to admit that do not fully understand the bill and its implications.  please do not get this thread locked.

[submit2junk]

I have not gone through each of the posts. But this whole CIR is a way of getting political votes. Because the illegals across the border not only will be regularized , but they also have significant numbers in terms of community / friends etc. So a CIR in favor of illegals is a possible way of getting elected in the election. It does not matter who carries this out successfully (Dem or Rep). Who ever does this, they may be assured to win the white house for the next 3-4 elections. So their opponents will surely try to stop this. If they don't they may be digging their grave. So i see bleak prospects for CIR. Unless there is absolute majority in the senate , this is not going to happen. 

 

I don't see a political party (irrespective of the county and it's justice system) trying to be ethical. There are no ethics in politics unless i have misunderstood the definition of the word Politics and the way politicians occupy office across the world and carry out their duties / responsibilities. Politicians in general look for short term gain and don't look for the welfare of the people. That is for leaders. You usually see one leader in a century or two. But you get politicians every 4-5 years depending on the countries electoral system.

 

Just forget this  CIR and continue with your day to day activities. If it still materializes then consider it as a bonus.

[catx]

....

 

So i see bleak prospects for CIR. Unless there is absolute majority in the Senate, this is not going to happen. 

 

...

 

Just forget this CIR and continue with your day to day activities. If it still materializes then consider it as a bonus.

 

Generally a realistic assessment of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR), politics, and the relationship between them with respect to CIR, even if a bit overstated about the near term impact of a so-called pathway to legalization +/- citizenship.  A couple comments regarding the quoted sentences ...

 

An absolute (60+%) majority in the Senate will not help with CIR legislation becoming law.  (The current Senate CIR bill, S. 744, passed with a 68% absolute majority.)  What I think is meant is that it would take a majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives for CIR legislation to become law (as the Democrats had during Obama's first term).  Legislation (a bill) has to be passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives (Congress) and then signed by the president to become law.

 

The last sentence is well put and pragmatic.  A person can exercise their rights politically, such as actively lobbying senators, representatives, the president, but should understand that it is an uphill battle (akin to 'pushing a rope').

[JoeF]

I have not gone through each of the posts. But this whole CIR is a way of getting political votes

No, it isn't. It is about acting like decent human beings.

In any case, even if a CIR doesn't look likely right now, neither does anything else. All immigration-related things are intertwined, regardless if some people like it or not.

And of course, people forget (or most people here don't know) that with a CIR, the last one, there wouldn't be an H1 status...

It helps to have a bit of a historical perspective. I am missing that in most of these discussions, where people only look as far as the tip of their nose.

[tusharvk]

There is overhaul of immigration and then there are fixes to immigration system.

Given the difficulties with the former, the latter can be advocated.

[JoeF]

There is overhaul of immigration and then there are fixes to immigration system.

Given the difficulties with the former, the latter can be advocated.

The problem is that piecemeal "fixes" often have unintended side-effects. For example, the current EB backlog for certain countries is a direct consequence of an H1 "fix" done over 10 years ago, when the H1 numbers were increased for a few years.

One of the reasons why a CIR is hard to do is that it takes time to think through things to avoid such unintended side-effects. It takes the same amount of time to do fixes right. Hence, it is more economical to actually do a CIR.

Now, if a dysfunctional Congress is able to do a CIR may be questionable. But their dysfunctional state also precludes fixes done right. All you could get would be "fixes" that blow up in a few years. Now, you may not care because by then your troubles are over, but future generations care. That's why I tell people to look past the tip of their noses.

[tusharvk]

unintended consequences of cir (the bill that passed in senate in 2013) may not have been understood either.

The h1 fix was done to satisfy demand and that may have led to eb backlog. Then there are unintended consequenes of keeping interest rates low for quite a while and many other such things. But there are also desirable effects of the policies\legislation\admin fixes.

Having a cir-like bill that a majority consents to would perhaps require years or sometimes decades of wait.

So, the fixes admin\legislative have their place while we are waiting for the best version of CIR.

[submit2junk]

 

If there is no H1 status, more jobs will go abroad .. it is 100% certainity. With (mostly) strengthening dollar , the jobs are likely to go abroad and are not likely to come back. H1 will continue but for reasons i am not going to mention here .. 

[JoeF]

If there is no H1 status, more jobs will go abroad .. it is 100% certainity. With (mostly) strengthening dollar , the jobs are likely to go abroad and are not likely to come back. H1 will continue but for reasons i am not going to mention here .. 

If that was the case, the jobs would have gone abroad a long time ago.

People on H1 have to be paid the prevailing wage. If the jobs would be abroad, companies wouldn't have to pay that much. They could pay Indian salaries...

So, this "the jobs would go abroad" is simply not true. The jobs would stay here, even if there wasn't the H1.

Your "100% certainty" is more like 0%.

In fact, a bunch of jobs that were outsourced to other countries have been coming back to the US.

[submit2junk]

If that was the case, the jobs would have gone abroad a long time ago.

People on H1 have to be paid the prevailing wage. If the jobs would be abroad, companies wouldn't have to pay that much. They could pay Indian salaries...

So, this "the jobs would go abroad" is simply not true. The jobs would stay here, even if there wasn't the H1.

Your "100% certainty" is more like 0%.

In fact, a bunch of jobs that were outsourced to other countries have been coming back to the US.

>If that was the case, the jobs would have gone abroad a long time ago.

It takes time for the companies to realize the jobs can be shipped outside.  Federal jobs are likely to stay put locally , and so are jobs like Motel, Airline ticketing like that which will require staff to be in place. But not IT jobs. 

 

>People on H1 have to be paid the prevailing wage. If the jobs would be abroad, companies wouldn't have to pay that much. They could pay Indian salaries...

Yes , you are correct .. that's what is happening with Private companies .. by paying Indian Salaries (less Medical Insurance overhead and the like , add to that $1 = Rs.62) .. This will make more jobs go abroad to China , Brazil , India etc

 

>In fact, a bunch of jobs that were outsourced to other countries have been coming back to the US.

Time will tell to what extent your observation is correct .. If what you are saying is correct , then the IT guys in countries like India should have lost their jobs by now which has not happened .. also, you need to ask yourself why USA has been extending MFN (Most Favored Nation) status to China all these years .. If as per what you say, the import to USA from China should be 0% (Zero %) with all the products being made in USA by the locals .. which is not the case.