Legal immigration poised to surge - Bills could double number allowed

thebullspeaks

Registered Users (C)
Source : http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...604030348/1009

April 3, 2006

BY MICHELLE MITTELSTADT and SUDEEP REDDY

DALLAS MORNING NEWS

Protesters pray during a walk for solidarity with immigrants Saturday in New York. The Senate is considering legalizing the nation's 11 million-plus illegal immigrants and creating a guest worker program. (FRANK FRANKLIN II/Associated Press)


Immigrants in the United States

The Pew Hispanic Center, a research organization in Washington, estimates that 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants, including children, are in the United States. An estimated 850,000 illegal immigrants have arrived each year since 2000.

About 6.2 million of them, or 56%, are from Mexico, according to Pew. About 2.5 million are from Latin America, 1.5 million from Asia, 600,000 from Europe and Canada and about 400,000 from Africa and other countries.

There are about 13.1 million legal immigrants, not including naturalized citizens.


CITIZENSHIP: Immigrants can apply for citizenship five years after becoming legal permanent residents. They must pay a naturalization fee, pass English, history and U.S. government tests and be of good moral character.

GUEST WORKERS: They have employer-sponsored visas to work in the country for a limited time, usually two to seven years. Some can apply for permanent residency.

The House has passed a bill that would make all illegal immigrants felons. It would also make offering them nonemergency aid or assistance a federal crime.

The Senate is looking at two proposals. The main differences:

One would let them stay in the country for up to five years if they apply within six months and pay fines that start in the second year at $2,000 and rise by that much each year. But they would have to leave the country at the end of five years. They could then apply to return to the country as permanent residents or guest workers. As guest workers, they could work in 2-year intervals for up to six years, but must leave for a year between each 2-year period.

The other would let them stay up to six years after clearing a background check and paying a $1,000 fine. If they pay all their taxes and don't get into trouble, they could apply for permanent residency without having to leave. Critics call this approach amnesty, saying it's unfair to immigrants who get in line to come to the United States legally.

President George W. Bush supports giving temporary legal guest worker status to illegal immigrants who have jobs and providing them with a path to becoming permanent residents and naturalized citizens. They couldn't get in front of legal residents already in that process.

WASHINGTON -- From the corridors of Capitol Hill to cities across the nation, people are passionately debating immigration -- at least the illegal part. Almost entirely unnoticed is that the Senate may be poised to hike legal immigration in dramatic fashion.

Some estimate that bills pending in the Senate could double the nearly 1 million green cards handed out yearly, granting legal permanent residence.

The United States, which already welcomes more legal immigrants than any other country, would see major increases in green cards under both immigration proposals being debated in the Senate. The bills also would add tens of thousands of temporary visas for workers, from the high-tech industry to medically underserved areas.

Advocates say it's time Congress expanded a green card quota so miserly that it keeps some would-be residents trapped overseas as long as 22 years before they're reunited with their relatives in the United States.

But others question the drive to increase legal immigration, particularly as the Senate is considering legalizing the nation's 11 million-plus illegal immigrants and creating a guest worker program to bring in 400,000 more foreigners every year.

"There has never been a public opinion poll that indicates Americans want more immigration," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, which opposes higher immigration. "Obviously, if the public were asked ... they'd say no to doubling legal immigration."

Just 17% of Americans favor increasing legal immigration, while 40% say it should be decreased, according to a Pew Hispanic Center poll released Thursday. Thirty-seven percent said they believe the current level is appropriate, pollsters found.

But tackling illegal immigration without increasing legal immigration would be a recipe for trouble, said Doris Meissner, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute who headed the Immigration and Naturalization Service under former President Bill Clinton.

"You really have to expand legal immigration, otherwise you're just creating a whole other bottleneck in the system in the future," she said. That's in part because newly legal immigrants in many cases would try to bring relatives from abroad, and if legal pathways don't exist, illegal immigration would begin anew.

Krikorian and others critical of increased immigration quotas accuse congressional leaders of flying below the radar when it comes to their efforts to boost legal immigration.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, the Tennessee Republican who has crafted one of the two immigration bills on the Senate floor, has stressed the border-control and enforcement aspects of his bill -- not his proposed increase in legal immigration.

Likewise, there's been little focus on the virtually identical legal immigration changes in a competing bill that the Senate Judiciary Committee approved last week.

The way the bills are worded, it's impossible to figure how much they would increase legal immigration. Judiciary Committee Republican aides say the legislation would add 500,000 to 550,000 green cards each year.

That estimate is far too low, said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for Arlington, Va.-based Numbers USA, which is lobbying against what she said would "by far" represent the biggest increase in legal immigration in U.S. history.

"It's huge, huge, huge," she said. "I'm estimating it would double legal immigration."

In 2004, the most recent year for which U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has provided figures, 946,142 green cards were issued -- two-thirds for family reunification.

The Senate bills would greatly increase family-sponsored green cards, now capped at 480,000 annually, by exempting the spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens from the total. That is expected to add about 260,000 green cards annually.

The bills also would boost employment-based green cards from 140,000 annually to 290,000, and would exempt applicants' spouses and children from the cap. Foreign students would be placed on a faster track for green cards.

And the Judiciary Committee bill would, for seven years, permit an unlimited number of green cards for nurses, physical therapists and others in jobs where the Labor Department says workers are in short supply.

Jeanne Butterfield, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in Washington, welcomed the Senate legal immigration proposals, pegging their rises at 550,000 to 650,000 green cards annually.

While acknowledging that the numbers "seem like a big gulp to people," she noted that legal immigration, as a percentage of the total population, would remain below the historic highs of the 1890s and 1910s. And many of the green cards would go to people already in the country, she said.

"It represents, I think, an understanding on the part of these congressional leaders that our economic system and our social fabric need to be adjusted to take account of 21st-Century realities," Butterfield said.
 
Thats something positive after a long time hopefully we will see it in writing and USCIS will make sense out of it. With millions of illegals getting such a consideration I believe the legals should expect a greencard without much delay and an apology if possible :D
 
hi, which page is it in dallas morning news i went thro the whole paper but could not find any such news.pls let me know,is it in todays edition?
 
Company Acquired...What to do.

Dear GC Gurus

I am not sure I need to concern for this or Not. My company filed my EB2 and got approved in Nov05. During December05, they filed 140 and approved mid of Feb.06. Now, my company was taken over by a much bigger company (speaking around 300 Million$) with effect from April 1st.

I wonder, wheather the labor and 140 which were approved in my name with my previous company name are valid any more with the new company. Currently I am waiting the PD to become current for Nov05 EB2 category. Donot know when.

My previous company says, there would not be any impact on the immigration and they are not even filing a new /revised H1 for me. The Official Takeover happend after 40 days of my 140 approval.


At this point in time, can any one of you advise me, whether my case is safe, or do I have to findout an alternative. :confused:

Did any one of you go through similar situation. If so Appreciate your advise. :)
 
spouse, parents and children excluded form *family-sponsored* visas as well? News to me. The usual FUD tactics...
 
Its not that bad

jnayar2006 said:
spouse, parents and children excluded form *family-sponsored* visas as well? News to me. The usual FUD tactics...


The numbers that immediate relatives did occupy will be available to the next four family based categories.

here is the wording:

TITLE V – BACKLOG REDUCTION31 Sec. 501. Elimination of Existing Backlogs. Section 501 would remove immediate relatives (spouses, children, and parents) of U.S. citizens from the annual worldwide ceiling of 480,000 family-based visas and redistribute them elsewhere in the family-based preference system. It also would more than double the ceiling on employment-based visas from 140,000 to 290,000. And it would exempt spouses and children of employment-based immigrants from the limits. Section 501 would provide for the recapture of both family-based and employment-based visas that go unused because of processing delays. Sec. 502. Country Limits. Section 502 would increase per-country ceilings for both employment-based and family-based immigrant visas. Sec. 503. Allocation of Immigrant Visas. Section 503 would redistribute the 480,000 family-based immigrant visas among the existing four family-based preference categories and redistribute the 290,000 employment-based visas, making modifications to the categories. Sec. 504. Relief for Minor Children. Section 504 would allow an applicant for an immigrant visa who is a child to also bring his or her child with them as a derivative immigrant. Sec. 505. Shortage Occupations. Added by the Judiciary Committee, section 505 would exempt from the worldwide and per-country numerical limitations aliens seeking entry to fill Schedule A (shortage) occupations including nurses, physical therapists. The exemption would begin on the date of enactment and end on September 30, 2017. Sec. 506. Relief for Widows and Orphans. Added by the Judiciary Committee, section 506 would codify the Widows and Orphans Act of 2006 to establish a new special immigrant category for certain widows and orphans outside the U.S. who are determined to be at risk of harm. 31 This title is drawn from provision in the November 9, 2005 Specter Chairman’s Mark. However, dropped from this draft are what were sections 505, “Amending the Affidavit of Support Requirements”; section 506, “Discretionary Authority”; and section 507, “Family Unity” of the November 9, 2005, Chairman’s Mark.
35
 
Be honest about the “immigration problem”

Another article on legal immigration...read on

http://159.54.226.83/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060404/OPINION/60403012/1049

Ruben Navarrette Jr.

April 4, 2006

SAN DIEGO — Now that the Senate is taking an honest look at the immigration problem, it’s time for the rest of America to be honest about what the problem really is.

Much of it really is about clashing cultures and a concern that immigrants aren’t assimilating. When someone complains that San Diego is “becoming like Tijuana,” or when someone else says — as an Idaho woman recently told the Los Angeles Times — that her neighborhood has become a Spanish-speaking “shanty town,” it’s a dead giveaway that, for many Americans, the problem is not with people coming into the country illegally, but with the effect they have on their surroundings once here.

The recent student walkouts, in protest of efforts to control illegal immigration, brought this sentiment to light. When more than 25,000 students in Los Angeles, and thousands of young people in other cities, took to the streets, what enraged many observers — judging from talk radio and television shows — was the fact that the protesters waved Mexican flags.

This reaction is no surprise. This country of immigrants has never been welcoming of new immigrants, even those who came legally.

So why don’t these people save us all a lot of time and admit that they don’t like immigrants and don’t really care how the immigrants got here? Sure, they might come across as nativist and narrow-minded, but they wouldn’t be alone.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., proposed a moratorium on legal immigration and a revision of the H-1B visa program aimed at high-tech workers. Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, has called for a “timeout” on immigration — both legal and illegal. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, has said that he’d limit the number of legal immigrants to just 300,000 per year — about a third of what it is currently — and create a system where we’d take in only the spouses and adopted children of U.S. citizens.

Bad ideas one and all.

Most Republicans in Congress insist they’re not anti-immigrant. If that’s the case, the time has come to prove it by allowing higher levels of legal immigration.

It’s only fair. They and their political posse have insisted all along that — in what has become a convenient sound bite — they aren’t anti-immigrant, only anti-illegal immigration.

In fact, CNN’s Lou Dobbs said exactly that on his show recently in response to viewer mail that accused him of being anti-immigrant.

Personally, I think Dobbs is pro-ratings. And the fact that ratings for his show are up since he seized on the immigration issue proves that it’s not only employers that prosper thanks to illegal immigrants. The same is true of aging television commentators.

And yet, on the question of whether we should maintain or increase current levels of legal immigration, Dobbs has been uncharacteristically silent.

Not so the Senate Judiciary Committee, which produced a reform bill that, among other things, increases the number of visas allocated to legal immigrants.

The same is true of the competing bill proposed by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. The Frist bill would more than double the number of employment-based green cards, from 140,000 to 290,000, and make more work visas available to unskilled workers. It also would make room for more legal immigrants by exempting immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from the annual allotment of visas, and increase the limits on relative-sponsored and high-skilled immigrants.

For those who believe, as I do, that legal immigrants are one of the best things about this country, and that they bring vitality and optimism and fresh blood, these reforms are just good common sense.

But for those restrictionists who don’t like immigrants, regardless of how they get here, the proposals are cause for alarm.

Among the alarmed is conservative activist and anti-immigrant opportunist Angela “Bay” Buchanan. She told CNN that the Frist bill was “worse than McCain-Kennedy,” the measure that forms the basis for what the Judiciary Committee produced.

What seems to worry Buchanan is that we’d still be bringing in all these immigrants — legal sure, but still foreigners with their different languages and their strange religions.

Funny. That’s pretty much what Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts was worried about in 1905 when he called for immigration restrictions because of the effect that foreigners from countries such as Ireland were having on “the quality of our citizenship” — people that might well have included an earlier generation of the Buchanan clan.
 
Anyone knows when the bill voted?

I saw the doubling quote to 290,000 for employ based GC long time ago, but I do not know when it get voted. I guess it is still a dream... It may be good for the future, but may not affect us who already filed the case...
 
Businesses push for high-skilled foreign workers

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06096/679993-28.stm

Thursday, April 06, 2006

By June Kronholz, The Wall Street Journal


Last year, Stanford University awarded 88 Ph.D.s in electrical engineering, 49 of which went to foreign-born students. U.S. business would like to hang on to these kinds of prized graduates and not lose them to the world -- which is one reason why it has a big stake in the immigration bill that is consuming the Senate.

The fate of millions of illegal immigrants, most of them low-skilled workers, dominates that debate. But the future of thousands of high-skilled foreign workers seeking admission to the country -- scientists, mathematicians, health-care workers -- may be equally important to the U.S. economy. Because of the key role many of those workers play in cutting-edge businesses, industry lobbyists are pushing measures that would more than double the number of visas available to skilled workers.

But if the years-long effort to overhaul the U.S. immigration system collapses, the issue of those visas could be buried in the rubble. "Our biggest fear is that the other issue -- the undocumented workers -- bogs down and threatens the entire bill," says Ralph Hellman of the Information Technology Industry Council, a Washington-based trade group.

President Bush waded into the fray Wednesday, urging senators to come to a quick conclusion, and Democrats were invited into what had been Republican-only meetings to find a compromise that can win the 60 votes needed to close debate. More talks will be held Thursday between Sens. Edward Kennedy (D., Mass.) and John McCain (R., Ariz.). But last evening, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R., Tenn.) was already moving to introduce a new Republican plan to address the legal status of undocumented workers in the U.S.

Those who arrived before April 2001 could begin an arduous but clear 11-year path to citizenship similar to that outlined in the Senate Judiciary Committee bill reported last week. But to appease conservatives, those who have come in the past five years are promised less.

In fact, anyone who can't prove that he or she was here legally before January 2004 would risk deportation, while a third, middle group of people who arrived in the intervening years could enter a temporary worker program. The annual cap on the number of visas for the program in the underlying Judiciary bill would be waived for these workers, but a Frist aide said they would be required within three years to get their paperwork in order, go to a port of entry of the U.S. and re-enter legally with a work permit.

As seen in the current talks, increasing visa limits for workers at all skill levels is certain to be part of any future compromise. Business is eager for more low-skilled immigration to keep the service and construction industries humming, but it's also lobbying hard for workers for high-tech and science-based industries.

Currently, only 65,000 three-year visas are available to skilled workers each year, and demand for those slots was so strong in the fiscal year that started in October 2005 that employers, who must sponsor those workers, snapped up all of them by last August.

The government also gives out 140,000 employment-based visas yearly -- so-called green cards that put immigrants on the track to citizenship. But those visas are shared equally among all sending countries. That means that an employer hoping to hire a Chinese- or Indian-born worker now has at least a five-year wait before the immigration service even reads the application.

Employers from hospitals to high schools increasingly are reliant on foreign workers who enter the U.S. through the employment-visa line. But high-tech employers are particularly dependent, and they say that the paucity of visas threatens their competitiveness.

Dallas-based Texas Instruments Inc. says about 500 of its 19,000 domestic employees are waiting for U.S. green cards, and that most of them are electrical engineers. Those workers are in the U.S. on temporary work permits, but while their green-card applications are pending, they can't change work assignments or cities to meet their companies' needs.

Employers are particularly irked by the visa system's treatment of foreign-born scientists who must leave the country after finishing their studies if a U.S. company can't secure a visa to hire them. As it is, U.S.-born students account for only about half the science, math, technology and engineering advanced-degree holders turned out by American universities yearly.

When companies run out of U.S.-born workers, and then can't hire immigrants, "projects get dropped or delayed, so development is slowed down," says Patrick Duffy, a human-resources lawyer for Intel Corp.

"It's not as if the work won't get done, it's where will the work get done," adds Sandra Boyd, who heads a National Association of Manufacturers competitiveness initiative.

In 1999, at the height of the dot-com bubble, high-tech industries convinced Congress to triple the number of temporary visas available every year. That largely met the economy's needs, says the Information Technology council. But the measure expired in 2003, and with the high-tech industry then ailing, employers didn't push for an extension.

Two years ago, under renewed pressure from employers, Congress made a modest adjustment. It exempted 20,000 advanced-degree holders who already were studying at U.S. universities from the cap on temporary visas, allowing them to take jobs with U.S. employers. But again, demand was so strong that those slots were filled on Jan. 9 for the fiscal year beginning in October.

"It doesn't make sense to educate this talent and then send them to our global competition to compete against us," says Intel's Mr. Duffy.

Lobbyists for the technology industry say they get a sympathetic hearing on Capitol Hill with that argument. The immigration bill passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week increases the number of green cards to 290,000 and the number of temporary visas to 115,000.

It also exempts U.S.-educated advanced-degree holders in science, technology, engineering and math from both of those caps, and puts them on an immediate path to citizenship, if they choose to stay in the U.S. after finishing their degrees.

An immigration bill passed by the House in December focuses on enforcing immigration laws on the border and in workplaces.

But the Information Technology council's Mr. Hellman says he expects that House members who are appointed to the conference committee that reconciles the House and Senate versions of any immigration bills will support measures aimed at high-skilled workers.

If that compromise bill does more than just enhance enforcement, he says, "our (issue) is first in line in terms of support."

But Congress might not get that far. Absent some agreement this morning between Sens. McCain and Kennedy, the Senate splits over undocumented workers now appear headed toward two cloture votes -- neither of which will succeed to cut off debate on the Judiciary bill and Mr. Frist's new alternative. "I cannot see the end of the tunnel to know if there is a light there," said Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) Wednesday night.

If that happens, industry lobbyists say they would try to attach their visa measures to a spending bill later in the year. That risks further delay and uncertainty, though, even while competitors, including Britain, are streamlining their immigration systems to attract high-skilled workers. "We'll find ourselves playing catch-up," warns the National Association of Manufacturers' Ms. Boyd.
 
Top