Bingaman Amendment interpretation ..

[saras76]

Here is what I read at immigration-law.com

"An Amendment Negative to EB Immigration Passed Today

The Senate passed today Bingaman amendment to limit the total number of EB aliens including spouses and children for the EB-based green cards be limited to 650,000 during any fiscal year. The original bill was to exempt the spouses and children of the EB immigrants from the numerical limitation and principal EB immigrants number was proposed to be 450,000. In a way, these two proposals remain intact, provided that the spouses and children can indirectly restrict the total EB numbers available for the EB immigrants and their spouses and children."

I guess it is negative because without this amendment the total number of visas for primary applicants in the EB categories would have been 450,000 and dependents would have been exempt. This Amendment changes the total number of visas to 650,000 and includes dependents in the count. I am not sure what the ratio to primary versus dependents is but lets say its 1:1. This pretty much means that the total number of visas for primary applicants under the Bingaman Amendement is half of 650,000 or 325,000. Now if the ratio of Primary to Dependents is 1:2 then it reduces the visas for primary applicants to about 215,000 and the rest of the 650,000 going to their dependents. Its still a vast improvement from what we have right now. I believe its 140,000 including dependents.

I think we should not be to dissappointed with this Amendment. It is still an improvement to our pathetic situation.

saras

 

[Yooklid]

Now if the ratio of Primary to Dependents is 1:2 then it reduces the visas for primary applicants to about 215,000 and the rest of the 650,000 going to their dependents. Its still a vast improvement from what we have right now. I believe its 140,000 including dependents.

I think we should not be to dissappointed with this Amendment. It is still an improvement to our pathetic situation.

saras

Does this mean visa numbers that could have been used for dependents will potentially go unclaimed?

 

[saras76]

No No ...

Does this mean visa numbers that could have been used for dependents will potentially go unclaimed?

Yooklid,

The way I understand it is that there are a total number of 650,000 visas for EB's in one year. These can go to either primary applicants or dependents. Some years there may be only 300,000 dependents so 350,000 visas will go to primary. Other years primary applicants will have an average of 3 dependents per primary. In this case the number of visas for primary will be 1/4 of 650,000. It is going to vary depending on the number of dependents in any given year. Atleast thats how I understand it .. someone please correct me if I am wrong.

regards,

saras

 

[Yooklid]

Also...

Are "dependents" from both EB and other worker categories?

 

[blondhenge]

You're correct Saras

Yooklid,

The way I understand it is that there are a total number of 650,000 visas for EB's in one year. These can go to either primary applicants or dependents. Some years there may be only 300,000 dependents so 350,000 visas will go to primary. Other years primary applicants will have an average of 3 dependents per primary. In this case the number of visas for primary will be 1/4 of 650,000. It is going to vary depending on the number of dependents in any given year. Atleast thats how I understand it .. someone please correct me if I am wrong.

regards,

saras

To put it simply, 450,000 EB primary visas with a total cap of 650,000 including dependants. The reality is that to use all 450,000 each year, there would have to be a lot of single people immigrating!

 

[ufo2002]

Blondhenge,

I already did a simple calculation earlier based on the assumption that every applicant is married with one child.
The net number of available EB visas annualy would be 216666... which looks like a net 50% increase over the 140k cap we have right now.
Yes, it's better... but with the 450000 earlier cap proposed without including dependents, we would have a 300% increase!
I personally would go for the 450k minus dependents... there are more visa numbers to go around.

To put it simply, 450,000 EB primary visas with a total cap of 650,000 including dependants. The reality is that to use all 450,000 each year, there would have to be a lot of single people immigrating!

 

[krishna_]

Isn't the xisting 140k limit including spouse and children?

Blondhenge,

I already did a simple calculation earlier based on the assumption that every applicant is married with one child.
The net number of available EB visas annualy would be 216666... which looks like a net 50% increase over the 140k cap we have right now.
Yes, it's better... but with the 450000 earlier cap proposed without including dependents, we would have a 300% increase!
I personally would go for the 450k minus dependents... there are more visa numbers to go around.

 

[ufo2002]

Oh yeah, that's right. Let me re-do this quick...

Now: 140k / 3 (per applicant) = approx 46666 EB Cap annually.
Bingaman: 650k / 3 = approx 216666 annual (about 5 times more)
Hagel/Martinez: 450000 no dependents. (about 9 - 10 times more)

Isn't the xisting 140k limit including spouse and children?

 

[blondhenge]

140K includes dependents though

Blondhenge,

I already did a simple calculation earlier based on the assumption that every applicant is married with one child.
The net number of available EB visas annualy would be 216666... which looks like a net 50% increase over the 140k cap we have right now.
Yes, it's better... but with the 450000 earlier cap proposed without including dependents, we would have a 300% increase!
I personally would go for the 450k minus dependents... there are more visa numbers to go around.

EB is still way ahead since the 140K cap included dependents.

Look at it this way: 70% of the 650,000 will be for EB1 through EB3. That equates to 455,000 total, versus the current total of 140,000 for EB.

It's not a doom and gloom amendment. We're still way ahead if this passes as is.

 

[garam.chadi]

The increase is encouraging .... and I think USCIS has anticipated the increase & I guess that the reason NSC has started doing the preAdjucation to shed off some peak load next year..

Good for us ... but I still wonder why USCIS is NOT trying to do away with preApproved labor stuff... Not only many are exploited thru this but people standing in the LINE are pushed back....

 

[saras76]

Employers and lawyers ..

The increase is encouraging .... and I think USCIS has anticipated the increase & I guess that the reason NSC has started doing the preAdjucation to shed off some peak load next year..

Good for us ... but I still wonder why USCIS is NOT trying to do away with preApproved labor stuff... Not only many are exploited thru this but people standing in the LINE are pushed back....

garam.chadi,

The reason they are having a tough time banning labor substitution is because of the strong bussiness and lawyer lobbies that are against this ban. Both stand to lose if labor substitution is banned. Businesses get to apply labors and shift them around freely while lawyers make a lot of money doing tons of labors. It is one of those loop holes that everyone knows about but refuses to rectify.

regards,

saras

 

[marlon2006]

No more recapture ?

Did the bill include the recapture of the visa numbers ?
From what I read so far I couldn't find that passage there talking about the recapture...

 

[nishokie]

when will the discussions between the senate members and house members held? do you know the timeline?

Here is what I read at immigration-law.com

"An Amendment Negative to EB Immigration Passed Today

The Senate passed today Bingaman amendment to limit the total number of EB aliens including spouses and children for the EB-based green cards be limited to 650,000 during any fiscal year. The original bill was to exempt the spouses and children of the EB immigrants from the numerical limitation and principal EB immigrants number was proposed to be 450,000. In a way, these two proposals remain intact, provided that the spouses and children can indirectly restrict the total EB numbers available for the EB immigrants and their spouses and children."

I guess it is negative because without this amendment the total number of visas for primary applicants in the EB categories would have been 450,000 and dependents would have been exempt. This Amendment changes the total number of visas to 650,000 and includes dependents in the count. I am not sure what the ratio to primary versus dependents is but lets say its 1:1. This pretty much means that the total number of visas for primary applicants under the Bingaman Amendement is half of 650,000 or 325,000. Now if the ratio of Primary to Dependents is 1:2 then it reduces the visas for primary applicants to about 215,000 and the rest of the 650,000 going to their dependents. Its still a vast improvement from what we have right now. I believe its 140,000 including dependents.

I think we should not be to dissappointed with this Amendment. It is still an improvement to our pathetic situation.

saras

 

[saras76]

Next few weeks ..

when will the discussions between the senate members and house members held? do you know the timeline?

The conference will begin in the next few weeks. The time line for approval (if it makes it) is 4-6 months.

saras

 

[GC_Govinda]

But, Manager's Amendments say something different...

Here is what I read at immigration-law.com

"An Amendment Negative to EB Immigration Passed Today

The Senate passed today Bingaman amendment to limit the total number of EB aliens including spouses and children for the EB-based green cards be limited to 650,000 during any fiscal year. The original bill was to exempt the spouses and children of the EB immigrants from the numerical limitation and principal EB immigrants number was proposed to be 450,000. In a way, these two proposals remain intact, provided that the spouses and children can indirectly restrict the total EB numbers available for the EB immigrants and their spouses and children."

I guess it is negative because without this amendment the total number of visas for primary applicants in the EB categories would have been 450,000 and dependents would have been exempt. This Amendment changes the total number of visas to 650,000 and includes dependents in the count. I am not sure what the ratio to primary versus dependents is but lets say its 1:1. This pretty much means that the total number of visas for primary applicants under the Bingaman Amendement is half of 650,000 or 325,000. Now if the ratio of Primary to Dependents is 1:2 then it reduces the visas for primary applicants to about 215,000 and the rest of the 650,000 going to their dependents. Its still a vast improvement from what we have right now. I believe its 140,000 including dependents.

I think we should not be to dissappointed with this Amendment. It is still an improvement to our pathetic situation.

saras

...That could nullify Bingaman's amendment. I don't know which of these amendments would take "precedence" and supersede the other amendment.
Manager's amendment says that the dependents are not going to be counted against the cap of 450,000 at all. The Bill manager's amendment was something that the senate members have "mutually agreed" upon before the debate. Now, Bingaman's amendment was debated and voted in favor. So, we don't know at this point of time and the actual bill's verbiage will be written by the Senate-House conference comittee....
It is funny - even after the passage of the bill in the senate there are still so many questions that do not have a very crystal clear answer....regardless of it's fate in the conference comittee.

Keep fingers crossed....your PD is earlier than that of mine - mine is sept 23 2002 and I have already ran out of ptience reserves...

 

[saras76]

We win either way ...

...That could nullify Bingaman's amendment. I don't know which of these amendments would take "precedence" and supersede the other amendment.
Manager's amendment says that the dependents are not going to be counted against the cap of 450,000 at all. The Bill manager's amendment was something that the senate members have "mutually agreed" upon before the debate. Now, Bingaman's amendment was debated and voted in favor. So, we don't know at this point of time and the actual bill's verbiage will be written by the Senate-House conference comittee....
It is funny - even after the passage of the bill in the senate there are still so many questions that do not have a very crystal clear answer....regardless of it's fate in the conference comittee.

Keep fingers crossed....your PD is earlier than that of mine - mine is sept 23 2002 and I have already ran out of ptience reserves...

GC_Govinda,

Whether the managers amendment gets through or the Bingaman's amendement, we stand to gain from this bill. It will bring immediate relief to 01 and 02 PD holders within EB3. Let just hope this bill gets through with all the legal provisions intact.

regards,

saras

 

[pinnu]

GC_Govinda,

Whether the managers amendment gets through or the Bingaman's amendement, we stand to gain from this bill. It will bring immediate relief to 01 and 02 PD holders within EB3. Let just hope this bill gets through with all the legal provisions intact.

regards,

saras

I agree with Saras that we just need this bill pass with the provisions for legal immigrants irrespective of fact whether they keep managers amendment or Bingaman's amendment. If that happens, retrogression will end for most of the people in this forum.

 

[gcstrat]

primary to dependent factor

Based on EB categories (for India) for which I had done calculations in "Retrogression: doing the math"

dependent to primary factor was 2.07 i.e you multiplied the primary by 2.07 to account for dependents and get total EB for India.

I had not calculated the WORLD or MEXICO dependent to primary factor.

This factor will change - just think if significant number of the illegals came without families - they would change the factor or it is possible because of this bill, they may include the families (even if they are not physically here) - that could change the factor.

I think some "creative accounting" may take place.

Regards
GCStrat