for all those who have a misguided belief the democrats are somehow imm friendly

[djh]

and believe things will all of a sudden get rosy... time to put away the prozac and confront reality

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/16052263.htm

 

[gc_retrogress]

Let us discuss what Democrats did when they had conrol

Please post what Democrats did for Immigration when they were in power?

Maybe hthat will will give us an idea of what they are usually after.

 

[marlon2006]

One here:
Clinton passed the 245(i) amnesty, which it is said to be one of the major reasons why we were stuck for so long. It is true that he did that in his last day in office.

Please post what Democrats did for Immigration when they were in power?

Maybe hthat will will give us an idea of what they are usually after.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

One here:
Clinton passed the 245(i) amnesty, which it is said to be one of the major reasons why we were stuck for so long. It is true that he did that in his last day in office.

Clinton did not "pass" anything. He merely signed a law passed by the Republican Congress (AC21) which contained the 245i extension.

 

[sfmars]

Clinton did not "pass" anything. He merely signed a law passed by the Republican Congress (AC21) which contained the 245i extension.

But the Senate was under Democrats majority at that time.

The same time portability for H1B people was signed as a part of AC21 and ability to increase staying of H1B beyond six years if I140 is pending more than 1 year.

As for Republicans they did 2 things at the end of 2002 they allowed to stay for H1B beyond six years if LC is pending more than 1 year.
Interesting fact that this law was initiated by senator republican who was against immigrants all the time but when he was re-elected, business management of his electors enforced him to initiate this law.

The second good thing from Republicans is concurrent filing of I140/I485.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

But the Senate was under Democrats majority at that time.

Not in 2000 it wasn't.

As for Republicans they did 2 things at the end of 2002 they allowed to stay for H1B beyond six years if LC is pending more than 1 year.

That was part of AC21 as well, passed in December 2000.

The second good thing from Republicans is concurrent filing of I140/I485.

That didn't require any change in the law; USCIS merely had to pass a regulation stating it would accept concurrent filings.

 

[sfmars]

Not in 2000 it wasn't..

The last time the Democrats lost majority in the House at 1994.
As for the Senate they lost the majority last time at 2002.

That was part of AC21 as well, passed in December 2000..

No it was not.
They allowed only if I140 pettition is pending more than 365 days in AC21.
Relief for LC (Labor Cert) people who is pending more than 365 days came only at the end of 2002. I know it is for sure because I use this relief myself.
That was not a part of AC21 in 2000.

That didn't require any change in the law; USCIS merely had to pass a regulation stating it would accept concurrent filings.

May be but it happened during Republican power everywhere

 

[GreenCardVirus]

Democrats are certainly "immigrant" friendly, they may or may not be "immigration" friendly. Mind that illegals are not "immigrants".

 

[TheRealCanadian]

The last time the Democrats lost majority in the House at 1994. As for the Senate they lost the majority last time at 2002.

The Democrats controlled the Senate between January 3rd, 2001 and January 21st, 2001, and then again from June 6th, 2001 until January 3rd, 2003.

They allowed only if I140 pettition is pending more than 365 days in AC21. Relief for LC (Labor Cert) people who is pending more than 365 days came only at the end of 2002. I know it is for sure because I use this relief myself.That was not a part of AC21 in 2000.

Sorry, but no.

http://www.shusterman.com/h1bfaqins.html

May be but it happened during Republican power everywhere

But the Republicans had nothing to do with it.

 

[eBhola]

I think the immigration isssue is quite complex when it comes to illegal immigration .. quite simple when it comes to legal immigration.

Simple for legal because the the Govt. need not do anything and still have no problems accross the board. The businesses are happy hiring h1b and/or EAD guys. Most major companies find outsourcing better option.
Issues like medical staffing -- are already handled .. and they simply have to make it little more easier to grab all the health care staff from 3r world.

The major problem is with the illegal immigration.. Every one seems not to support it .. but the bottomline -- corporate america loves them. Imagine the life without an illegal ... Hmm who is going to work on the roadways .. who is going to work endlessly on the farms ...who will become the future Army .. who is going to help Walmart look good at Nasdaq.

US can train a computer programmer.. can train an engineer or doctor .. But hmm in near future no american will be willing to join the dirty work ... Most middle class americans who VOTE .. think that LEGAL immigrant appear to take away there job than illLEGAL immigrants.

Bottomline -- do NOT expect anything dramatic to happen for legal immigration. If somehow our issues are addressed piggybacking on illegal immigration bill -- something might happen. So lets pray for something good for illegal guys.

 

[marlon2006]

And so, who is the ultimate responsible for it ? It remains. Clinton passed the 245(i) law. If he thought that was a bad idea, it was his call to veto it.

Clinton did not "pass" anything. He merely signed a law passed by the Republican Congress (AC21) which contained the 245i extension.

 

[sfmars]

The Democrats controlled the Senate between January 3rd, 2001 and January 21st, 2001, and then again from June 6th, 2001 until January 3rd, 2003..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2002
Look at the table, you will see that Democrats had majority in 2000

Sorry, but no.
http://www.shusterman.com/h1bfaqins.html.

I do not believe to Mr. Shusterman and his website more than 7 years.
But seriously he just quoted AC21 summarized with FAQ and mixed everything together.

The fact is that the law for extention with pending LC was approved only at the end of 2002. It is not the same like I140 pending which was part of AC21 originally

But the Republicans had nothing to do with it.

At least the Republicans did not make troubles for that.

 

[marlon2006]

I think they may leave this for the next president. Who would be the next ? Republicans have just one viable candidate so far:Gov. Mitt. Believe me. McCain won't make it. Rudy maybIe. If Republicans have no viable candidate, then it will be Hillary in power and she has what it takes to push an amnesty through. Jut my personal opinion.

I didn't post this thread to have a point scoring excerise based on your political persuasion. I posted it because there seems to be a false impression that somehow the Democrats are going to solve all the immigration woes, which by default would suggest the Republicans are the source of all woes.

This is simply not true, if anything, it's probably the opposite, but that still is not that point. The point is that the immigration reform will still as it always has required bipartisan support and like it or not illegal immigration will get tied somehow in a comprehensive package. As such, don't look for any quick solutions.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2002
Look at the table, you will see that Democrats had majority in 2000

Looking at the table, it merely states that the Democrats had a majority in the Senate at the time of the election. However, in December 2000 when AC21 was passed, the composition of the Senate was determined by the election of 1998 since the Senators elected in 2000 did not take office until January 3rd, 2001.

You really shouldn't quote wikipedia if you do not understand how the US Government works and is elected.

I do not believe to Mr. Shusterman and his website more than 7 years.
But seriously he just quoted AC21 summarized with FAQ and mixed everything together. The fact is that the law for extention with pending LC was approved only at the end of 2002.

I see; you do not believe a respected attorney and merely arbitrarily choose to reject things you do not disagree with. That is a very dangerous attitude to take.

Seriously, if you believe that it was passed in 2002, please provide us with the bill numbers in the House and Senate that contain the relevant language. I can tell you that S.2045 passed in 2000 contained the language. Wether you choose to believe me or not, that's the facts.

 

[GotPR?]

The fact is that the law for extention with pending LC was approved only at the end of 2002. It is not the same like I140 pending which was part of AC21 originally

if you were talking about AC21 implementation, not about law, it was effective in 2000. Pending LC clause has been there since then.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ac21guide.pdf

As realcanadian said, S.2045 is the bill amending the law.
Go to USCIS site, and see the section "Public law amending the INA" link.
It clarifies your misunderstanding.

 

[indian_gc_ocean]

I think democrats do not really care about the IT people waiting for GCs, they need illegal immigrants vote bank. All the proposals will be towards that direction. In the last election, while talking against BPOs, John Kerry repeatedly quoted that it is ok to outsource IT jobs because US does not have enough man power. As long as they think like this it will be difficult for IT professional on H1, EAD or for that matter having GCs.

Republicans love their guest worker program. Similar program is already going on for IT guys now.

All in all, everyone generally support immigration for those who have US advanced degrees. that way they are sure of either meritorious or affluent youth would be immigrated here. I doubt any good would happen for an average eb3/eb2 IT professional.

 

[indian_gc_ocean]

I would have to disgree that additional quota for US advanced degree holders would indirectly help average IT eb2/eb3.

Most of the guys who are stuck in retrogression are IT guys, I don't think adv. degree holders are cutting into eb3/eb2 in a big percentage (just my opinion looking at various companies staff, don't have statistics to support). Many people with US degrees are preferring to go EB1 once reserved for an elite few. Looks like USCIS is also fine with that.

So, even if we have an additional quota for advanced degree holders, it will not be very much useful to the average eb3 IT pro.

 

[sfmars]

if you were talking about AC21 implementation, not about law, it was effective in 2000. Pending LC clause has been there since then.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ac21guide.pdf

As realcanadian said, S.2045 is the bill amending the law.
Go to USCIS site, and see the section "Public law amending the INA" link.
It clarifies your misunderstanding.

GotPR and TheRealCanadian
I realize that your point was that memo which is not not the law unfortinatelly. This memo is just only USCIS amendment which was not the law.
I was talking about the law which is not applicable to the point of the discussion. As you know the law needs to be approved by the President and the Senate and Congress before.
The law itself which allows pending LC people more than 365 days was approved only at the end of 2002.

However the date of the memo is June 2001 which is not December 2000

 

[TheRealCanadian]

GotPR and TheRealCanadian
The law itself which allows pending LC people more than 365 days was approved only at the end of 2002. However the date of the memo is June 2001 which is not December 2000

Again, the law was S.2045, which was passed by Congress on December 15th, 2000. The memorandum is INS' guidance on interpreting and applying said law.

Why would they create a memordanum to intrepret a law that according to you had not been passed?

 

[sfmars]

Again, the law was S.2045, which was passed by Congress on December 15th, 2000. The memorandum is INS' guidance on interpreting and applying said law.

Why would they create a memordanum to intrepret a law that according to you had not been passed?

Yes they can do it, I mean USCIS.

They can release memo, then revoke that memo, then change the memo until the law approved what they said in one otheir memos.

Again this memo was released after the law AC21.