S. 1932 Status

Bob Ney response from Ohio

Hi,
I made nearly 40 calls, for democrats there is no response. For Majority of democrats I could not able to leave the message.
Bob Ney from Ohio picked up the phone and curiously discussed the issue. He wrote the section 8001 and 8002 numbers.
I emailed the PP of sunjoshi to him, he said he will look at it
guys please, please,please keep calling
do or die today
 
Disaster -if dependent clause is removed

I dont think it will be good to remove the other 2 clauses . We will fall right in the hands of the numbersusa.org .I will tell you why .

1) Anyone will come in tomorrow , will apply for PERM , get it in 15 days and apply for I140 / 485 .

Thats it . Before , you know it there will be 1 million people who does that and the entire load will bring USCIS down. Obviosly , USCIS will be loaded since they cannot adjudicate the 485 . It is VERY VERY bad for people who has a PD before 2004 . They will be in double trouble . one their files will not be adjudicated and two no one will ever act on their requests ( because there will be soooo many cases ) .

I sincerely request member with PD before 2004 to act for the whole thing !! . NOt that i have anything against people with PD > 2004 .

Sry if i have hurt anybody !!
 
Change Of Conferee

10:43 P.M. -
CHANGE OF CONFEREE - Without objection and pursuant to clause 11 of rule 1, the Chair announced the removal of Mr. Upton as a conferee on S. 1932 and appointed Mr. Barton to fill the vacancy.
 
gc_bronco said:
Today is "THE DAY" guys. Definitely call up all the Judiciary Committee Members of the conference at the very least and then the other members also

Just remember even if things don't go right this year, we would have laid a very strong foundation for the next year's bills on comprehensive reforms.

Hum honge kamyab....
(We shall overcome....)[/QUOTE

Sensenbrenner doesn't even have a VM. Called the other members and left VM.
Click to expand...
 
DUDE, NJDUDE and others,

RELAX Take a deep breath...you are scaring the shit out of people.

What you reproduced from AILA is the passage of H.R.4437.

Readmore here : http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/4437.html

Everything is given here in detail...

I sat through the entire discussion yesterday and let me give more info on this bill.

1. There were 2 amendments called FLAKE and HAYWORTH which were turned DOWN or withdrawn...you can read all o fthis at the above link.

Hope this helps...
 
please dont make irresposible statements about allowing people to file for 485

As stucklabor has correctly pointed out the whole idea of compromise is to come out of this whole effort with atleast something and if allowing for filing I485 even with visa number unavailability can be achieved it would be great. Something is better than nothing.

Based on what do you make this irresponsible statement that allowing 485 will flood the uscis. Even if EB numbers are increased people will file for 485 would that not flood the USCIS. If people are not allowed to file for 485 they wont get AP, they will be forced to apply for yearly H1 extensions which have to be processed by USCIS as well, would that not flood USCIS? one way or the other 485/AP extension or the H1 extension both have to be processed by the USCIS, so please before you shoot your mouth off think a bit before criticizing the provision to file 485 without visa number availability. Your post shows how selfish you are in your thinking. The one provision which greatly helps a vast majority of people is the ability to file for 485 without visa numbers availability, of course without EB numbers increase the final solution wont be achieved but lets at least get something out of it for the last 3 months of effort rather than going home empty handed.



atldolwait said:
I dont think it will be good to remove the other 2 clauses . We will fall right in the hands of the numbersusa.org .I will tell you why .

1) Anyone will come in tomorrow , will apply for PERM , get it in 15 days and apply for I140 / 485 .

Thats it . Before , you know it there will be 1 million people who does that and the entire load will bring USCIS down. Obviosly , USCIS will be loaded since they cannot adjudicate the 485 . It is VERY VERY bad for people who has a PD before 2004 . They will be in double trouble . one their files will not be adjudicated and two no one will ever act on their requests ( because there will be soooo many cases ) .

I sincerely request member with PD before 2004 to act for the whole thing !! . NOt that i have anything against people with PD > 2004 .

Sry if i have hurt anybody !!
Click to expand...
 
No more phone access?!

Left messages on Leahy, Grassley, Conyers, Smith.

Specter's VM is full, and Sensenbrenner doesn't have VM :-(

Left messages in support of subsection (c) of Sec 8001 of S.1932.ES only.

I think we reached too high the last few days. I hope we get at least one of the EB relief measures in the conference.
 
stucklabor said:
Please don't just post a link without doing any research.

This is the Sensenbrenner bill which never had any H1B provisions to begin with. The only EB related provision was to end the sibling GC quota and move all of that to EB. This was withdrawn.

However, more than ever, I feel that we need to call the Senators and suggest a compromise option:

1. Ask, at the bare minimum, for filing I485 even with visa number unavailability.
2. Drop the removal of dependents from counting towards the cap.
3. Drop the increase in EB numbers.

That way, we can live to fight another day.
Click to expand...

stucklabor,

I don't disagree with you at alll. You are corect. We should atleast get something. (I don't have a preference on your list since each of us are in a different situation) Personally, I would take any of those, atleast a few of our friends would get relief, which is better than nothing.

However, I must remind you, for the current effort, lets not lose focus the final few hours and confuse people by starting a new debate.

Like I mentioned before, compromise WILL happen weather we like it or not, due to the conference process. it just may not happen based on our preferences.

S1932 is just a small battle in the bigger war. We will need your sugestion and spirit going forward.

For now, my request is to keep focus on calling/faxing and pushing others to do so.
 
SunJ

sunjoshi said:
stucklabor,

I don't disagree with you at alll. You are corect. We should atleast get something. (I don't have a preference on your list since each of us are in a different situation) Personally, I would take any of those, atleast a few of our friends would get relief, which is better than nothing.

However, I must remind you, for the current effort, lets not lose focus the final few hours and confuse people by starting a new debate.

Like I mentioned before, compromise WILL happen weather we like it or not, due to the conference process. it just may not happen based on our preferences.

S1932 is just a small battle in the bigger war. We will need your sugestion and spirit going forward.

For now, my request is to keep focus on calling/faxing and pushing others to do so.
Click to expand...



Agree with you, SunJ. We should get something in this battle, at least one of the provisions going forward so someone is benefited.

It is funny how things work. About a month back, I was still stuck at the Philly Labor Clearance backlog center but was fighting for S1932. People at the Labor clearance forum were making fun of me since I was 'fighting for someone else'. Suddenly, my labor was cleared miraculously - my PD is 11/2003 - where people from 2001 are still waiting for the Philly backlog center to get off its butt.

I have thought of that as being a reward for not being selfish.

Let us keep fighting to make things better.
 
guys please read this about H.R.4437

source: www.immigration-law.com

12/17/2005: House Passed "Egregious" H.R. 4437 Last Night, but Senate Action Needed Next Year

This bill is so egregious as to make drunken driving an aggravated felony, an deportable offense, unlawful presence in the U.S. a criminal offense, termination of immigration lottery program, etc., etc. There was an amendment introduced to remove citizenship to a child born of illegal alien parents in the U.S., but this stupid amendment was defeated.
Employment-based immigrant community started to pay attention to this bill because a Congressman from Arizona had introduced an amendment to increase the employment-based immigrant quota as part of this legislation. However, such attention was misguided in that the immigrant community could not support this inherently egregious legislative bill just because it had contained a provision to increase the immigrant quota. This amendment was defeated on the floor any way.
This bill has a long way to go. The Senate will not pick up this bill until next year and it is expected that this bill will face a steep opposition from various segments of the community. The fate of this bill is uncertain in that this bill will eventually fall into a part of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation process which is tabled in February 2006 in the Senate. In a way, it was a good news that the House passed this bill right at the end of the Congress' last dates in session.

So, we are still ON and please stop discouraging people
 
Well said, Stuck Labor.

Last night I was on the PBEC thread and pained to see that those guys are lost in a world of their own - you cannot blame them for seeing the bigger picture.

ONLY after you clear labor and go through the hoops of I-140 and 485 do you understand the significance.

well, glad to hear you cleared labor...
 
Conyers gets a lot of calls from people opposing 8001!

I spoke to Conyers office and he asked whether I was pro or con?
He told me he received calls opposing 8001

REDOUBLE YOUR EFFORTS
 
CALL CALL CALL sorry to be so repetitive

CALL AND FAX NOW

Fax with the 3 nice options availabel on ISNAMERICA.org. You need to click on INDIVIDUAL FAX and put in some basic info.

YOU can CALL:

HOUSE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE

TITLE 8 headed by these 3 esteemed members

Name Phone # Fax # State Party
James Sensenbrenner 202 225-5101 202-225-3190 Wisconsin R
John Conyers 202 225-5126 202-225-0072 Michigan D
Lamar Smith 202 225-4236 202-225-8628 Texas R

SENATE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE:

Phone Fax
Senator Richard C. Shelby (R- AL) 202-224-5744 202-224-3416
Senator Jeff Sessions (R- AL) 202-224-4124 202-224-3149
Senator Ted Stevens (R- AK) 202-224-3004 202-224-2354
Senator Wayne Allard (R- CO) 202-224-5941 202-224-6471
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R- GA) 202-224-3521 202-224-0103
Senator Charles E. Grassley (R- IA) 202-224-3744 202-224-6020
Senator Tom Harkin (D- IA) 202-224-3254 202-224-9369
Senator Mitch McConnell (R- KY) 202-224-2541 202-224-2499
Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D- MA) 202-224-4543 202-224-2417
Senator Max Baucus (D- MT) 202-224-2651 202-224-0515
Senator Judd Gregg (R- NH) 202-224-3324 202-224-4952
Senator Kent Conrad (D- ND) 202-224-2043 202-224-7776
Senator Arlen Specter (R- PA) 202-224-4254 12022281229
Senator Patty Murray (D- WA) 202-224-2621 202-224-0238
Senator Michael Enzi (R- WY) 202-224-3424 202-228-0359
Senator Pete V. Domenici (R- NM) 202-224-6621 202-228-0900
Senator Paul S. Sarbanes (D- MD) 202-224-4524 202-224-1651
Senator Daniel K. Inouye (D- HI) 202-224-3934 202-224-6747
Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D- VT) 202-224-4242 202-224-3479
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D- NM) 202-224-5521 202-224-2852
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jalpot,

Hello, im getting ready to call, but where can i read a little more about 8001 and other amendments? I want to have read before i talk to them..

Also, is the final voting today? (Sorry i didnt have patience to go through last 2 days of postings)
 
Any one getting through to Sensenbrenner & Smith????

I am unable to leave voice mails for Sensenbrenner. I really hope superman is able to break through

For Smith, I left a VM but I am afraid they may not get to it before Monday.
I called the Texas office too.

For Conyers, in whose VM box do you guys leave a message? There is a desi name, ( Prasad) option 5, So I left a message for her.
 
Payami,

ALL you have to do is say one line,

Please support section 8001 of the senate version in the conference committee discussions today

this is more than enough
 
Conyers?

jolpot said:
I called Conyers office and told him about my support for 8001 and he told me "we support it". Hmm
Click to expand...


I keep calling Conyers and keep getting VM.

Jolpot, did you try to get to one of his staff by using one of the extensions?

Whoever gets through, also ask them about the status of Sec 8001.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top