where_is_my_gc
Registered Users (C)
What the hell is wrong with them?
Bill S. 1932: And I thought Democrats were pro-immigration
- Thread starter where_is_my_gc
- Start date
where_is_my_gc said:What the hell is wrong with them?
The bill deals with more issues (more important for them) than immigration. They are talking about taxes, trade deficit etc. Looks like it is going to be very tough for it to pass from today's talks.
Yes.... the democrats are trying to quash it.
WaldenPond
Registered Users (C)
Bill S. 1932 - Not just immigration bill.
Guys,
Bill S. 1932 is not just about additional GCs or H1s. Add ional GCs and H1s account for $500 million of the total bill that has effect of $70 Billion. This makes immigration part of the bill, 1/140th of the total bill. What is being discussed are some very important issues like tax cuts for the wealthy and other cuts from education and welfare programs that effect the poor when there are other tax cuts proposed for the wealthy. I think most of us (and I include myself in this) want to see this bill pass for our GCs and we want to see this bill only through that window. And there is nothing wrong with that viewpoint since that is the most important issue for us at this time.
Dems are professing Keynesian philosophy of the economy and Reps are arguing classicalist philosophy of economy. This has nothing to do with anybody's GCs. It's just a regular process of discussion that every bill goes through. Just relax. When everybody would finish with saying what they have to, as part of the democratic process, the bill would pass with some minor modifications. It doesn’t mean that as a surprise, Dems have changed sides today. Its just how the process plays out.
Just my 2 cents.
WaldenPond
-------------------------
PD:06-Jun-02
I-485:02-Oct-03
Second Biometric: 21-Sep-05
Third EAD: 30-Sep-05
Guys,
Bill S. 1932 is not just about additional GCs or H1s. Add ional GCs and H1s account for $500 million of the total bill that has effect of $70 Billion. This makes immigration part of the bill, 1/140th of the total bill. What is being discussed are some very important issues like tax cuts for the wealthy and other cuts from education and welfare programs that effect the poor when there are other tax cuts proposed for the wealthy. I think most of us (and I include myself in this) want to see this bill pass for our GCs and we want to see this bill only through that window. And there is nothing wrong with that viewpoint since that is the most important issue for us at this time.
Dems are professing Keynesian philosophy of the economy and Reps are arguing classicalist philosophy of economy. This has nothing to do with anybody's GCs. It's just a regular process of discussion that every bill goes through. Just relax. When everybody would finish with saying what they have to, as part of the democratic process, the bill would pass with some minor modifications. It doesn’t mean that as a surprise, Dems have changed sides today. Its just how the process plays out.
Just my 2 cents.
WaldenPond
-------------------------
PD:06-Jun-02
I-485:02-Oct-03
Second Biometric: 21-Sep-05
Third EAD: 30-Sep-05
WaldenPond
Registered Users (C)
And if I may add, Sunjoshi - Your posts are really very imformative and bring out the latest that is going on. Your contribution to the discussion board is really valuable to me. I have read the discussion board for long time. And every evening, I go out to search for your posts and post of some of the others selected like kewl. Some of the research that you do is very helpful to this community. Keep up the good work.
WaldenPond.
WaldenPond.
where_is_my_gc
Registered Users (C)
WaldenPond, you may be right
But I also see increasingly number of dems opposing anything related to immigration (legal too) and outsourcing. So, anything related to jobs (shifting from americans to others - inside or outside us). May be on a broader perspective it is against the democratic party agenda. But there are people who are opposing it. I have one in my local area.
But I also see increasingly number of dems opposing anything related to immigration (legal too) and outsourcing. So, anything related to jobs (shifting from americans to others - inside or outside us). May be on a broader perspective it is against the democratic party agenda. But there are people who are opposing it. I have one in my local area.
marlon2006
Registered Users (C)
Nice that you try to think positively, but the immigration issues introduced in this type of bill makes it highly controversial. I think that is fact.
"This is not the time or place for controversial immigration provisions,” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) told the Washington Times. "We’re going to need every Republican we can get to pass (the budget reconciliation bill).”
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) - a vocal opponent of illegal immigration and proponent of tighter border security - promises to vote against the bill if it includes the immigration provision. Tancredo thinks it is inappropriate to consider immigration policy in a budget bill. "We should never be doing immigration policy inside this kind of bill,” Tancredo told the Times.
The measure is included in the budget reconciliation package because it raises the fee on employment-based visas by $500 each, raising an estimated $120 million per year. It is supported by universities, hospitals, technology companies, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Opponents claim the $120 million does not compensate for damage to American job-seekers.
Not surprisingly, the House reconciliation package steers clear of immigration, and some House members told the Times they would try to ensure the provision is not included in the final bill."
"This is not the time or place for controversial immigration provisions,” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) told the Washington Times. "We’re going to need every Republican we can get to pass (the budget reconciliation bill).”
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) - a vocal opponent of illegal immigration and proponent of tighter border security - promises to vote against the bill if it includes the immigration provision. Tancredo thinks it is inappropriate to consider immigration policy in a budget bill. "We should never be doing immigration policy inside this kind of bill,” Tancredo told the Times.
The measure is included in the budget reconciliation package because it raises the fee on employment-based visas by $500 each, raising an estimated $120 million per year. It is supported by universities, hospitals, technology companies, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Opponents claim the $120 million does not compensate for damage to American job-seekers.
Not surprisingly, the House reconciliation package steers clear of immigration, and some House members told the Times they would try to ensure the provision is not included in the final bill."
WaldenPond said:
Opponents claim the $120 million does not compensate for damage to American job-seekers.
all these dumb kronies need to be told that we all have certified labors which means that it has been determined by the DOL that we are NOT taking any american jobs....
all these dumb kronies need to be told that we all have certified labors which means that it has been determined by the DOL that we are NOT taking any american jobs....
marlon2006 said:
marlon2006
Registered Users (C)
Nishokie, I hope a relief for the EB folks will pass. I have worked hard contacting senator, etc. Yes we have LC's, but we need to understand that folks are particularly against the H1B increase and the exemption of family members. The latter is a hot button, can you imagine increasing the immigration of a country by 300,000/year ? At minimum this requires broader discussion... I am crossing my fingers.
The problem is that
The problem is that
nishokie said:
mydearcard
Registered Users (C)
dryheat said:
Then what the hell r u doing i this forum? Are you plying any cheap trick so that ppl could read you? Let us hear your thinking why would you hate this bill.
elusive_gc
Registered Users (C)
Yes, agreed!!! The DOL applies to only primary applicant. But what about all the money put into the economy by the primary on behalf of his family. All the stuff we buy everyday from health insurance to tuition and fees for spouses on H4 (since they can not do any thing else).
It makes little sense to cause enormous hardship to legal immigrants who have played by the rules. Most of us have come though the front door, paid those exorbitant graduate tuition bills and worked hard and long to obtain the jobs.
It makes little sense to cause enormous hardship to legal immigrants who have played by the rules. Most of us have come though the front door, paid those exorbitant graduate tuition bills and worked hard and long to obtain the jobs.
berkeleybee
Registered Users (C)
Budget Reconciliation Bill: Other Issues/Sausage Making
Here is an article that gives examples of some of the other areas that are affected by the Budget Reconciliation Bill. ANWR, Medicare etc. You'll see that there are even some Republicans who don't want ANWR drilling in this bill.
Copyright 2005 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
November 1, 2005 Tuesday
Home Edition
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 3A
LENGTH: 454 words
HEADLINE: Budget bills call for drilling in Arctic refuge;
Controversial items may sink measure
BYLINE: JEFF NESMITH
BODY:
Washington --- Oil interests appear poised to finally win their quarter-century struggle for access to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but environmentalists insisted Monday they would not give up the fight.
Committees in the House and Senate have approved measures that would lease part of the pristine Alaskan wilderness for drilling.
The language would be included in the annual budget reconciliation bill, which amends federal programs to make them meet spending and revenue targets.
Under Senate rules, such bills are not subject to the filibusters that have stymied previous attempts to open the reserve.
However, environmentalists were buoyed by the fact that the GOP-written reconciliation bill contains other controversial proposals --- such as cuts of billions of dollars from Medicaid, Medicare and student loans, among other programs --- that could lead to its defeat.
The Senate began debating the reconciliation bill Monday, and the House Budget Committee is to consider its version Wednesday.
A group of environmental groups is running ads in states where they think there is Republican opposition to drilling in the refuge.
"This is probably the most threatened the Arctic refuge has been since 1960, when it was established by President Dwight Eisenhower," said Bill Meadows, president of the Wilderness Society.
He said that his group was joining five other organizations --- the Public Interest Research Group, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, the Alaska Coalition and the Alaska Wilderness League --- in sponsoring the ads.
Featuring sweeping panoramas of tundra-covered plains, the ads say government studies show that oil from the refuge would lower U.S. gas prices by only a penny per gallon in 2025.
"But that isn't stopping Tom DeLay and other Washington politicians from pressuring New Jersey congressman Mike Ferguson to support drilling in ANWR," says an ad aimed at Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-N.J.).
Ferguson was one of 24 Republican representatives who wrote to House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) opposing use of the budget reconciliation bill to open the refuge.
Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) insisted drilling was long overdue.
"Frankly, we should have developed the oil in ANWR 10 years ago," said Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
"If we had had that oil after Katrina and Rita, I don't believe we would have seen $3-a-gallon gasoline."
Energy interests began pressing for access to a portion of the Arctic reserve in 1981, with the beginning of the Reagan administration.
President Ronald Reagan's Interior Secretary, James Watt, ordered seismic exploration in 1983, leading to estimates that the reserve has 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
WaldenPond said:
Here is an article that gives examples of some of the other areas that are affected by the Budget Reconciliation Bill. ANWR, Medicare etc. You'll see that there are even some Republicans who don't want ANWR drilling in this bill.
Copyright 2005 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
November 1, 2005 Tuesday
Home Edition
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 3A
LENGTH: 454 words
HEADLINE: Budget bills call for drilling in Arctic refuge;
Controversial items may sink measure
BYLINE: JEFF NESMITH
BODY:
Washington --- Oil interests appear poised to finally win their quarter-century struggle for access to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but environmentalists insisted Monday they would not give up the fight.
Committees in the House and Senate have approved measures that would lease part of the pristine Alaskan wilderness for drilling.
The language would be included in the annual budget reconciliation bill, which amends federal programs to make them meet spending and revenue targets.
Under Senate rules, such bills are not subject to the filibusters that have stymied previous attempts to open the reserve.
However, environmentalists were buoyed by the fact that the GOP-written reconciliation bill contains other controversial proposals --- such as cuts of billions of dollars from Medicaid, Medicare and student loans, among other programs --- that could lead to its defeat.
The Senate began debating the reconciliation bill Monday, and the House Budget Committee is to consider its version Wednesday.
A group of environmental groups is running ads in states where they think there is Republican opposition to drilling in the refuge.
"This is probably the most threatened the Arctic refuge has been since 1960, when it was established by President Dwight Eisenhower," said Bill Meadows, president of the Wilderness Society.
He said that his group was joining five other organizations --- the Public Interest Research Group, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, the Alaska Coalition and the Alaska Wilderness League --- in sponsoring the ads.
Featuring sweeping panoramas of tundra-covered plains, the ads say government studies show that oil from the refuge would lower U.S. gas prices by only a penny per gallon in 2025.
"But that isn't stopping Tom DeLay and other Washington politicians from pressuring New Jersey congressman Mike Ferguson to support drilling in ANWR," says an ad aimed at Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-N.J.).
Ferguson was one of 24 Republican representatives who wrote to House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) opposing use of the budget reconciliation bill to open the refuge.
Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) insisted drilling was long overdue.
"Frankly, we should have developed the oil in ANWR 10 years ago," said Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
"If we had had that oil after Katrina and Rita, I don't believe we would have seen $3-a-gallon gasoline."
Energy interests began pressing for access to a portion of the Arctic reserve in 1981, with the beginning of the Reagan administration.
President Ronald Reagan's Interior Secretary, James Watt, ordered seismic exploration in 1983, leading to estimates that the reserve has 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil.