I don't think anything like that would happen. If the new law is placed it would be for new applications and will not apply for pending applications. That is how laws are usually implemented. Or else USCIS will have to face a slew of lawsuits and USCIS's action would most probably not hold up in a court of law.
May Visa Bulletin
- Thread starter bijuria11
- Start date
I don't think anything like that would happen. If the new law is placed it would be for new applications and will not apply for pending applications. That is how laws are usually implemented. Or else USCIS will have to face a slew of lawsuits and USCIS's action would most probably not hold up in a court of law.
kaisersose
Registered Users (C)
estimates?
Do we have the following numbers?
1. The minimum number of eb2 and eb3 visa numbers available to India each year under the per country limit (without counting the unused numbers of eb1)?
2. Estimated number of Indian labors processed in BEC.
3. Current rate of PERM approvals per year, India and ROW.
If we have these numbers, we can make some "worst case" predictions on when a PD may become current.
Thanks
Do we have the following numbers?
1. The minimum number of eb2 and eb3 visa numbers available to India each year under the per country limit (without counting the unused numbers of eb1)?
2. Estimated number of Indian labors processed in BEC.
3. Current rate of PERM approvals per year, India and ROW.
If we have these numbers, we can make some "worst case" predictions on when a PD may become current.
Thanks
mariner555
Registered Users (C)
Bijuria ..I think you are safe ..I think even if there are changes to FB it will affect future petitions and not existing petition ..am I right or wrong ..Thera ..others pls comment ?
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
But EB wouldn't be so retrogressed if the EB quotas were expanded to compensate for smaller FB numbers.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
I can see reasons for admitting parents over a certain age, but allowing siblings and adult children doesn't make any sense. It just leads to never-ending exponentially increasing chain migration that will overflow any quota you set no matter how big and isn't as good for improving the economy as EB visas designed for the economy's needs.
agree 100%. Don't see any reason why anyone other than spouse and children should qualify for GCs. Also parents can come here on visas that are usually given for 10 years nowadays. Actually, because the system is clogged with siblings and parents etc, spouses of GC holders are having to wait for several years. It is ridiculous. I think if family is to be stressed, it is the wife and husband that should come first. Only if spouses start getting GCs within a year should they even think of parents and siblings.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
485 without PD current is another ball of wax altogether and that wasn't what I was talking about. I know it will be a problem if there aren't sufficient restrictions around it.
That's fine. Give fewer FB, more EB visas, and let the siblings and adult children come in via their own EB application if they're qualified, like every other unrelated qualified person.
One big difference with EB vs. FB is the chain migration that leads to nothing but massive backlogs. With FB, people bring in their relatives, their relatives bring in their relatives, ad infinitum. There is no solution to the backlog because if you expand the sibling quota and hire more USCIS resources to allow in 1 million, that million will then want to bring in 2 million, and so on. Whereas with EB you bring in the employee and their spouse and children and that's it... unless you let them in turn use FB to start a chain.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
If I "ruled the world", some changes I'd make are as follows:
1). Eliminate siblings and adult children. Add those numbers to the EB quotas.
2). Allow parents, but only those over 60, and only if their child(ren) sponsoring them can show income and assets to support them indefinitely, at a level much higher than the current "125% of the poverty line" which is unrealistically low.
3). Points-based system for EB applicants, with acceptance or rejection within a year. Once rejected you cannot reapply for 3 years. Statistics will be published quarterly for the point levels of those who got accepted, so you can self-eliminate if you see that you don't have a good chance.
4). No quota restriction for spouses of GC holders who have held a GC for less than 6 years. Those who have a GC for 6 years or more will be restricted by the quota, unless the GC-holder has a citizenship application that has been pending for at least a year.
1). Eliminate siblings and adult children. Add those numbers to the EB quotas.
2). Allow parents, but only those over 60, and only if their child(ren) sponsoring them can show income and assets to support them indefinitely, at a level much higher than the current "125% of the poverty line" which is unrealistically low.
3). Points-based system for EB applicants, with acceptance or rejection within a year. Once rejected you cannot reapply for 3 years. Statistics will be published quarterly for the point levels of those who got accepted, so you can self-eliminate if you see that you don't have a good chance.
4). No quota restriction for spouses of GC holders who have held a GC for less than 6 years. Those who have a GC for 6 years or more will be restricted by the quota, unless the GC-holder has a citizenship application that has been pending for at least a year.
I don't need to "ruled the world", i would only rule the USCIS and have them to give me the US passport. Period!
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
Regardless of how somebody becomes a citizen, the chain stops very quickly if you disallow sponsoring of siblings and adult children. Allow siblings and adult children, and the chain is practically infinite.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
That's with a badly designed points system. If I ruled the world the system would be well-designed.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
The White House proposal included getting rid of existing FB applications in some categories, giving them the chance to reapply fresh under the expanded EB quota.
See http://www.usnews.com/usnews/images/blogs/news_blog/White House Imm Proposal.pdf
EB vs FB
I do not understand why some people keep mixing EB and FB.
It would be fair if some FB categories: siblings/parents were eliminated and people under those categories were enforced to be filed under EB.
It would be also fair to allow filing I485 without PD for EB category only.
But I think most of those FB would resist against transfer to EB.
It is not possible for most of them to find fake employment or to have a deal with potential employer to file EB green card for them. I can accept that there are some people for whom it is not a problem but definitely not all of them.
In case of FB their relatives file green card for them, they got sponsor by default.
I do not understand why some people keep mixing EB and FB.
It would be fair if some FB categories: siblings/parents were eliminated and people under those categories were enforced to be filed under EB.
It would be also fair to allow filing I485 without PD for EB category only.
But I think most of those FB would resist against transfer to EB.
It is not possible for most of them to find fake employment or to have a deal with potential employer to file EB green card for them. I can accept that there are some people for whom it is not a problem but definitely not all of them.
In case of FB their relatives file green card for them, they got sponsor by default.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
I don't expect most FB applicants to qualify via EB.
I'm just saying that the extended FB categories like siblings and adult children are just plain impractical in the long run. You can't solve it by increasing the quota to N, because those N people will try to bring in 2N of their relatives. Never-ending chain migration will cause the wait to become 30, 40, 50 years and it won't stop growing. There will eventually be a de facto elimination of those family categories because by the time your priority date becomes current you or your sponsor will be dead. In fact, the USCIS has essentially stopped processing them. Better to reject them now and let them get a prompt start on pursuing something else.
In the long run nobody except 100-year-olds will get the sibling/adult children green cards, but the USCIS would still be expending resources on processing the other 99.9% of people who will ultimately die before their priority date becomes current... resources that could have been directed towards EB applications.
Last edited by a moderator:
mariner555
Registered Users (C)
quick reply ..why are people against siblings and adult children ? USA is a huge country with relatively low population ..say there is an old couple who are US citizens and they need support of some sort from either siblings or from adult children ..what is the harm in that ?? as it is most categories are severely retrogressed. in the end ..for most people, life in USA is tough ..economically or otherwise ..if people cant face the life here, then it is just a matter of time before they leave (and yes ..people do go back )..the main point is this ..EB quotas were assigned when India and china were closed, lethargic countries ..as competition has increased, low unemployment, baby boomer retirement etc US needs to increase EB quotas ....how they sell it to the people is a different matter.
Immigration is a double edged sword....
Once you get the H1B ...you don't want the H1B quota to increase...as it would mean more competition for jobs!
Once you get GC...you don't want too many guys getting GC's...as you don't want to face decreasing wages with foreign labor competition...
In this path to immigration...it's like a pathway of doors, one is eagerly trying to force open the door in front and trying their best to keep the door behind closed!
HEE HEE HEE....
there is no solution that works for everybody......but only short letups (like 3 year H1B cap raise in 2001-2003 and no country quotas from FY 2002 - 2004 ) that allow immigrants to creep into areas with shortage of labor!
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
Why are you against skilled workers, and hard-working unskilled workers willing to do the back-breaking jobs that are important to the country's economy and infrastructure? The US has lots of space and can hold many more people, but it takes time and resources to process immigrants. FB categories that will ultimately take 30-100 years to process are wastes of resources that could otherwise be directed towards enforcing the border and processing a greater quantity and quality of EB applicants. Unless you see some value in giving out lots of posthumous green cards.
And as I explained in earlier posts in this thread, you can't save the retrogressed FB categories by increasing their quota... they'll just bring in a bigger wave of relatives who will overfill the bigger quota ad infinitum. The sibling/adult children categories are already impossible for those who haven't already applied; the government should just be honest with everybody and get rid of those categories officially.
Last edited by a moderator:
GreenCardVirus
Registered Users (C)
Well Said Banta.
By the way "If I ruled the world" I would try to decrease, in countries like India, the pollution, poverty, corruption, crime, illiteracy, casteism so that I can go back and live like I live in US. Then we would'nt need anything called as immigration.
indian_gc_ocean
Registered Users (C)
Increasing H1 cap to 195,000 and allowing H1 to stay here more than 6 years after filing for greencard, trying to have laws to allow eveyone file 485 without having any plans to how to implement..... all these would take the same resources that would make EB follow FB soon.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
Yes, that is also capable of getting out of control... but it is nowhere as explosive as FB which has infinite chain migration. With EB only, you bring somebody with their spouse and children and it stops. One EB person does not beget another EB person, unless they start a company so they can hire the next EB person. And if they start a company, that's a good thing.
With FB, you bring in a guy and his wife and children, then his wife has brothers and sisters and parents, who in turn have siblings and spouses who have siblings and parents and children ... it's exponential, whereas EB is close to linear. One FB person begets 3 more FB applicants who beget 9 more who beget 27 more...
Of course, you might say that the EB guy will want to bring in his brother and sister and dog ... but that only supports my point, because in order to do that he's using the exponential FB route.
Last edited by a moderator: