Republicans favour hike in H-1B visas

S

sank

Registered Users (C)
HI,
Are they going to Extend Dates for the V-Visa Program the news given in the link.
it will be helpful for us who got GC approval before marriage.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It also said it is imperative to 'reorganise family unification preferences to give priority to spouses and children, rather than extended family members.'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://in.rediff.com/money/2004/aug/31visa.htm

-sank
 
sank said:
HI, Are they going to Extend Dates for the V-Visa Program the news given in the link. it will be helpful for us who got GC approval before marriage.
Click to expand...

Four years ago, they said that they would get all immigration processing down to six months or less. Based on their track record thus far, you decide how likely this promise is to be fulfilled.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.....
 
Both Democrats and Republicans favor any immigration bill. Let's see what happens after Jan 15, 2005 (after new president takes an oath to be at the White House officially). I know it is disappointing that four years ago they (Bush Administration) didn't fulfill promises for all people including US citizens, US permanent residents, and immigrants. It just happened because of fears, polls, security, Congress votes, and debates. Both Republicans and Democrats have to be careful.
 
Let's face it. It's an election year and all sorts of immigration reforms have been floated to court certain groups... raising the H1 cap appeases silicon valley and silicon alley, Bush's 'guest worker program' courts the Latino vote, and so on. Of course, the proof is in action and we will see the if the promises are empty or not after January 2005. I can' wait to get my citizenship so I can vote.
 
To be fair, the last presidency term plans were changed by 9/11. I understand BCIS was making an effort to come down to 6-month processing time prior to 9/11. No, I hate BCIS as much as you do, but just pointing a fact out.
 
You can decide which one is best for immigration relations. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.html

------------------------------------
About immigration issues, Kerry, Bush, and Nader have different issues. It looks like Kerry has good ideas.

John Kerry favors speeding immigration process, uniting families, and patrol border. He is willing to sign any immigration bill (he indeed mentioned about it in any immigration news.) Also, he is willing to help creating more jobs for everyone in usa.

George Bush favors proposing increasing budget to enforce immigration laws (VISIT program, fingerprint program, deportation program, SEVIS program, etc.). He didn't mention about backlogs, etc. BUT overally, he can't promise about backlog issues, guest worker program, uniting families, backlogs, etc. (He didn't talk about these issues recently.)

Ralph Nader favors offering worker permits, employee rights and opposing open borders. (He mentioned about offering worker permits and employee rights on cnn news, but he didn't mention about backlog issues, uniting families, etc.)
 
You might be right but Kerry has a problem of switching sides. He is a FLIP-FLOP.

Looking at his past record, I am afraid he might change his stand on immigration issues once he is in office.

USGC485 said:
You can decide which one is best for immigration relations. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.html

------------------------------------
About immigration issues, Kerry, Bush, and Nader have different issues. It looks like Kerry has good ideas.
...
Click to expand...
 
usnycus said:
You might be right but Kerry has a problem of switching sides. He is a FLIP-FLOP.
Click to expand...

Well, all the politician are flip-flop. Tell me a name who is not. Difference is some politicians don't have label attached to them - including our current president. They change views like you do or I do - based on the situations/opportunities. So don't believe what they say, but carefully watch what they do.
American politics is all about lobby and every lobby has its own agenda - whether its environment, particular industry or immigration. Just find a suitable candidate who is more comfortable with your agenda or more likely to accept your agenda.

usnycus said:
Looking at his past record, I am afraid he might change his stand on immigration issues once he is in office.
Click to expand...

What is his record, related to immigration? Do you know that exactly (without picking one voting record out of context)?
 
I am talking about his record on changing position on issue(s). All the politician change stands time-to-time but not the way Kerry does. On almost every issue he seems to agree and disagree at the same time.

I really don't want to see Bush getting re-elected but I see very little hope with Kerry. Even after giving worst four years in terms of economy, healthcare, & education, Kerry campaign is not able to utilize on Bush administration failure..

BTW, I was not talking about his records on immigration issues. Anyway, now you have asked, let me see if I can find any information.



pralay said:
What is his record, related to immigration? Do you know that exactly (without picking one voting record out of context)?
Click to expand...
 
Kerry on Immigration:

a) Restore immigrant benefits lost in 1996 welfare reform. (Mar 2004)
b) Expedited citizenship for members of the Armed Forces. (Mar 2004)
c) Earned legalization for immigrants to keep families together. (Feb 2004)
d) Earned legalization for undocumented immigrants. (Jan 2004)
e) Amnesty to anyone here over 5 or 6 years. (Sep 2003)
f) Voted NO on allowing more foreign workers into the U.S. for farm work. (Jul 1998)
g) Voted NO on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)
h) Voted NO on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)

Source: http://www.issues2000.org/International/John_Kerry_Immigration.htm
 
usnycus said:
I am talking about his record on changing position on issue(s). All the politician change stands time-to-time but not the way Kerry does. On almost every issue he seems to agree and disagree at the same time.
Click to expand...

Well, that's true for any senator - not just John Kerry (well, execept some idealogues who does want to change the positions with the situation or current circumstances). If you check any senator's voting record you will find all contradictions - somewhere, sometime, someway. When you look at their voting record, you have to study the social/political scenario the time when voting took place. Without that study - everything is out of context. For example (hypothetical), before 9/11 (not after) if a senator voted against formation of DHS, would that be inappropriate? That's the very reason in last 100 years you will find very few senator/congressman who became president. Because their voting record becomes an issue - full of contradictions. This flip-flop issue is nothing new. In 1996, senator Bob Dole had to face the same problem. In 2000 election Dick Cheney voting against Mandela's prison release became an issue (he was saved because he was not running for president). It's unfair but an ugly reality. That's the very reason most of the elected presidents are Washington outsiders. Does that mean all the senators/conggressmen are flip-flop, Washington outsiders are NOT flip-flop?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good post. Only two senators have ever become president - JFK and Warren Harding precisely because it's hard to fight against the smear campaign involving voting records. Even disregarding variable social, political and economic situations, most of the bills have multiple issues clubbed together. You can be for some of the issues and against some other. Looking at voting records retrospectively is mostly futile. "Kerry is a flip-flopper" is just a republican talking point, nothing more.

With respect to immigration, I do not see fundamental differences between mainstream democrats and mainstream republicans. There are fringe right-wing groups who are totally against all immigration, but they are unlikely to have enough clout in near future.

There might be a subtle difference. Bush and republicans in general are more friendly with corporate bigwigs and care more about their bottom-lines than the democrats. Outsourcing jobs is great for bottom-lines and it also reduces the need for immigration. So Kerry and democrats are probably a bit more H1B/Employment-based-GC friendly and more opposed to losing US jobs. Republicans probably care a little less about job losses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top