S. 1932 Status
- Thread starter sunjoshi
- Start date
Hopeful news
Immigration Daily dated Dec 14th
http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/digest/2005,1214.shtm
Sections 8001 and 8002 of S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005, will soon be set for conference committee. Well informed projections suggest that some form of the Senate bill will prevail in conference over the unwelcome House version. The Senate bill, when enacted, would increase the availability of employment-based immigrant visa numbers, allow submission of I-485 adjustment of status applications even if a visa number is not yet available, recapture a limited number of H-1B visas, and impose new $750 fees (which only the employer may pay) on L-1 initial petitions, blanket L-1 visa applications and the initial extension of status. S. 1932 tasks USCIS with developing procedures to deal with the added torrent of new filings, and to allocate scarce H-1B visa numbers and track filing fees for the newly recaptured visas. The new law would also expand the authority of the DOL to investigate employer compliance with the new restrictions on source of payment for L-1 filing fees. By December 20, the conference committee work, with approved amendments, is expected to be done. Passage of the conference version of S. 1932 by the full Congress would then be a virtual certainty (the exact vehicle may be another bill such as H.R. 4241, the house counterpart of S. 1932, but the substantive points above would still stand).
Immigration Daily dated Dec 14th
http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/digest/2005,1214.shtm
Sections 8001 and 8002 of S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005, will soon be set for conference committee. Well informed projections suggest that some form of the Senate bill will prevail in conference over the unwelcome House version. The Senate bill, when enacted, would increase the availability of employment-based immigrant visa numbers, allow submission of I-485 adjustment of status applications even if a visa number is not yet available, recapture a limited number of H-1B visas, and impose new $750 fees (which only the employer may pay) on L-1 initial petitions, blanket L-1 visa applications and the initial extension of status. S. 1932 tasks USCIS with developing procedures to deal with the added torrent of new filings, and to allocate scarce H-1B visa numbers and track filing fees for the newly recaptured visas. The new law would also expand the authority of the DOL to investigate employer compliance with the new restrictions on source of payment for L-1 filing fees. By December 20, the conference committee work, with approved amendments, is expected to be done. Passage of the conference version of S. 1932 by the full Congress would then be a virtual certainty (the exact vehicle may be another bill such as H.R. 4241, the house counterpart of S. 1932, but the substantive points above would still stand).
If www.ilw.com is true, it is very good news for all of us. On other hand, www.immigration-law.com reported following, which is not seems favorable:
Cross the finger and pray God
12/14/2005: Senate S. 1932 Conferee Instructions Debate and Agreements
* As we pointed out in the previous posting, today the Senate debated and agreed to certain motions following the Senate's yesterday's agreements. Unfortunately, these debates did not include the immigration packets. The debate is scheduled to continue tomorrow, but it is uncertain whether any motions can be brought up other than the ones which the Senate agreed to yesterday. For the today's debate, please click here.
* We have yet to wait and see how the House-Senate conference process will develop and unfold. However, it is too sad that the businesses have swifted their gears from S. 1932 issue to illegal immigration legislation issue after the Senate passed the S. 1932. The immigrant communty has also lost steam and energy since the passage of the bill in the Senate. Reportedly, the FAIR group that is the Meca of anti-immigration forces has intensified their lobby and campaigns against the S. 1932 immigration packet. It appears that one poisonous pill the group used was that the S. 1932 immigration bills may be better handled as part of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation next year. It was drummed up by some legislators including Lamar Smith, the Congressman from Texas and an Indian website in India even publicized the concept. Such tactics apparently worked in dividing immigration stakeholders. We must congratulate the FAIR for their job well-done.
Cross the finger and pray God
12/14/2005: Senate S. 1932 Conferee Instructions Debate and Agreements
* As we pointed out in the previous posting, today the Senate debated and agreed to certain motions following the Senate's yesterday's agreements. Unfortunately, these debates did not include the immigration packets. The debate is scheduled to continue tomorrow, but it is uncertain whether any motions can be brought up other than the ones which the Senate agreed to yesterday. For the today's debate, please click here.
* We have yet to wait and see how the House-Senate conference process will develop and unfold. However, it is too sad that the businesses have swifted their gears from S. 1932 issue to illegal immigration legislation issue after the Senate passed the S. 1932. The immigrant communty has also lost steam and energy since the passage of the bill in the Senate. Reportedly, the FAIR group that is the Meca of anti-immigration forces has intensified their lobby and campaigns against the S. 1932 immigration packet. It appears that one poisonous pill the group used was that the S. 1932 immigration bills may be better handled as part of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation next year. It was drummed up by some legislators including Lamar Smith, the Congressman from Texas and an Indian website in India even publicized the concept. Such tactics apparently worked in dividing immigration stakeholders. We must congratulate the FAIR for their job well-done.
md17 said:
SaiWelcome
Registered Users (C)
Willing to Support
I am willing to support.
Guys we need everyones support. Good luck
sk_bayarea said:
I am willing to support.
Guys we need everyones support. Good luck
catch_22_4_GC
Registered Users (C)
md17 said:
This passage is from a commentary piece by ILW where they are trying to promote some ILW teleconference...See below some of the wordings of this passage:
Immigration law changes are everywhere. Is your immigration practice ready for all these revolutionary changes? .....For bankable strategies and tips on best practices, register now for this three-part ILW.COM teleconference moderated by Angelo A. Paparelli, named the World's Leading Authority on Corporate Immigration Legal Expertise, and featuring the leading lights in immigration law.
So I wouldn't put much thought to AILA's ramblings, since they have their own agenda.
At the moment, it looks to me that Senator Arlen Specter is our only hope. He is the Senate Judiciary Chairman, a veteran Senator, a reasonable voice and a key proponent of the Immigration amendments in the budget bill. He was also instrumental in getting the 'Byrd Amendment' against 8001/8002 defeated in the Senate. So we should somehow contact him to get the 'Immigration Issue' upfront from the back-burner. Any thoughts guys?
Last edited by a moderator:
Bad news?
Source: http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
12/15/2005: Senate S. 1932 Immigration Packet Practically "Dead"
The Senate is scheduled to continue the preagreed motions for instructions to the Senate conferees as follows: DeWine Motion to Instruct Conferees to insist that any conference report shall not include the provisions contained in section 8701 of the House D1282amendment relating to the repeal of section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930. GPO's PDFKohl Motion to Instruct Conferees to insist that any conference report shall not include any of the provisions in the House amendment that reduce funding for the child support program established under part D of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), and to insist that the conference report shall not include any restrictions on the ability of States to use Federal child support incentive payments for child support program expenditures that are eligible for Federal matching payments. Kennedy Motion to Instruct Conferees to insist that the Senate provisions increasing need based financial aid in the bill S. 1932, which were fully offset by savings in the bill S. 1932, be included in the final conference report and that the House provisions in the bill H.R. 4241 that impose new fees and costs on students in school and in repayment be rejected in the final conference report. Reed Motion to Instruct Conferees to insist on a provision that makes available $2,920,000,000 for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 et seq.), in addition to the $2,183,000,000 made available for such Act in the Departments of Labor, Health, and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006. A unanimous-consent agreement was reached yesterday providing for further consideration of the message from the House to accompany S. 1932 (listed above) at 3:30 p.m., today with a series of votes to occur on the pending motions to instruct Conferees.
Since the Senate would agree not to instruct the Senate conferees not to include the House amendment to the Senate version on the immigration packet, the original Sections 8001 and 8002 appear to be practically dead unless any unlikely miracle takes place.
Source: http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
12/15/2005: Senate S. 1932 Immigration Packet Practically "Dead"
The Senate is scheduled to continue the preagreed motions for instructions to the Senate conferees as follows: DeWine Motion to Instruct Conferees to insist that any conference report shall not include the provisions contained in section 8701 of the House D1282amendment relating to the repeal of section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930. GPO's PDFKohl Motion to Instruct Conferees to insist that any conference report shall not include any of the provisions in the House amendment that reduce funding for the child support program established under part D of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), and to insist that the conference report shall not include any restrictions on the ability of States to use Federal child support incentive payments for child support program expenditures that are eligible for Federal matching payments. Kennedy Motion to Instruct Conferees to insist that the Senate provisions increasing need based financial aid in the bill S. 1932, which were fully offset by savings in the bill S. 1932, be included in the final conference report and that the House provisions in the bill H.R. 4241 that impose new fees and costs on students in school and in repayment be rejected in the final conference report. Reed Motion to Instruct Conferees to insist on a provision that makes available $2,920,000,000 for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 et seq.), in addition to the $2,183,000,000 made available for such Act in the Departments of Labor, Health, and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006. A unanimous-consent agreement was reached yesterday providing for further consideration of the message from the House to accompany S. 1932 (listed above) at 3:30 p.m., today with a series of votes to occur on the pending motions to instruct Conferees.
Since the Senate would agree not to instruct the Senate conferees not to include the House amendment to the Senate version on the immigration packet, the original Sections 8001 and 8002 appear to be practically dead unless any unlikely miracle takes place.
Last edited by a moderator:
catch_22_4_GC
Registered Users (C)
NEWS UPDATE
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., signaled he might try to move the hotly contested oil drilling plan from the budget cut bill to the must-pass defense budget bill, setting up a major confrontation with Democrats and a likely filibuster. But because the bill also carries new money for hurricane relief and to combat the avian flu, GOP leaders hoped they might be able to jam it through.
It looks like Congress is doing all in its power to get the Spending reduction Bill passed before the end of this year. Contact your representatives in the Congress NOW.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., signaled he might try to move the hotly contested oil drilling plan from the budget cut bill to the must-pass defense budget bill, setting up a major confrontation with Democrats and a likely filibuster. But because the bill also carries new money for hurricane relief and to combat the avian flu, GOP leaders hoped they might be able to jam it through.
It looks like Congress is doing all in its power to get the Spending reduction Bill passed before the end of this year. Contact your representatives in the Congress NOW.
What is the last post you see, something going on with
his website, that it is caching the old one for your browser, which of course if you clear the new posts can be seen, I have had this problem too..
for more fun I see the new posts from another machine where I guess the settings must be to refresh each visit
his website, that it is caching the old one for your browser, which of course if you clear the new posts can be seen, I have had this problem too..
for more fun I see the new posts from another machine where I guess the settings must be to refresh each visit
tusharvk said:
rajrahul_k
Registered Users (C)
Guys respond ASAP, In C-SPAN they are discussing about Immigration reform bill...Call them to let them know we support the bill...
rajrahul_k
Registered Users (C)
Call to this number 202-737-0002 -Democrats (REP: LUIS GUTIELENZ)
catch_22_4_GC
Registered Users (C)
nato said:his website, that it is caching the old one for your browser, which of course if you clear the new posts can be seen, I have had this problem too..
for more fun I see the new posts from another machine where I guess the settings must be to refresh each visit
GUYS - Refresh your webpage or do F5. You should be able to see the latest news of Oh's website.
catch_22_4_GC
Registered Users (C)
sunjoshi said:
SunJoshi,
What we need to clearly mention is replace Section 5101 in the House Amended S.1932.EAH under 'Committee of the Judiciary' with Section 8001 and Section 8002 from the original version of the Senate S.1932.ES.
You have to notice that the amended version has a different title number for the Judiciary Committee related amendments.
Last edited by a moderator: