S. 1932 Status
- Thread starter sunjoshi
- Start date
Manishi,
Following are the SJC members. No luck, their voicemails are full. They were on the committee prior to S.1932 presented on the senate floor and getting passed.
######################################
S E N A T E Judiciary Committee
######################################
Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D- VT) 202-224-4242 12022243479
senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
Senator Arlen Specter (R- PA) 202-224-4254 12022281229
http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm...ontactInfo.Home
Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D- MA) 202-224-4543 12022242417
http://kennedy.senate.gov/contact.html
Senator Charles E. Grassley (R- IA) 202-224-3744 12022246020
http://grassley.senate.gov/webform.htm
Following are the SJC members. No luck, their voicemails are full. They were on the committee prior to S.1932 presented on the senate floor and getting passed.
######################################
S E N A T E Judiciary Committee
######################################
Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D- VT) 202-224-4242 12022243479
senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
Senator Arlen Specter (R- PA) 202-224-4254 12022281229
http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm...ontactInfo.Home
Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D- MA) 202-224-4543 12022242417
http://kennedy.senate.gov/contact.html
Senator Charles E. Grassley (R- IA) 202-224-3744 12022246020
http://grassley.senate.gov/webform.htm
The news that conference committee members have drop the immigration provision is not easy to accept if you think logically. Here are some of the reasons:
1. The conference committee members from the Senate have upper hand in negotiation in comparison to the conference committee members from the House because based on the senate version of the bill the immigration provision will bring more revenue than house version. The whole goal of this bill is to control deficit by reducing spending and increasing the revenue. So during the negotiation members will be thinking in terms of reducing the spending and increasing the revenue.
2. The Senate conference committee members will not agree to the removal of the immigration clause from the bill based on the threat that they would vote against the bill if the immigration provision is included in the bill. Reason is that those members who are saying that they would vote against it if the immigration provisions is included are the same people who also voted for L-1 inclusion in the House version of the deficit reduction bill. (BY THE WAY NEGOTIATION DOES NOT TAKE PLACE THAT WAY. The negotiation takes place and agreement is reached when both party give something to each other.)
3. The republican conference committee members from the House e.g. James Sensenbrenner, Lamar Smith have in the past not voted against the legal immigrants. Also these people have not made any official statement that is against solving the retrogression problem. If you look at the history they both have on many occassions have voted in favor of H-1 visas.
4. One would argure that few congressman like Tom Tancrado may say that immigration clause should not be in this bill since this is the bill introduce to address the deficit. The simple argument is that then why did he not asked Lamar Smith and James Sensenbrenner to remove the L-1 provision from the House version (unless they treat L-1 visa as something not included in the Immigration subject).
Everyone please keep calling. I do see the light at the end of the tunnel.
1. The conference committee members from the Senate have upper hand in negotiation in comparison to the conference committee members from the House because based on the senate version of the bill the immigration provision will bring more revenue than house version. The whole goal of this bill is to control deficit by reducing spending and increasing the revenue. So during the negotiation members will be thinking in terms of reducing the spending and increasing the revenue.
2. The Senate conference committee members will not agree to the removal of the immigration clause from the bill based on the threat that they would vote against the bill if the immigration provision is included in the bill. Reason is that those members who are saying that they would vote against it if the immigration provisions is included are the same people who also voted for L-1 inclusion in the House version of the deficit reduction bill. (BY THE WAY NEGOTIATION DOES NOT TAKE PLACE THAT WAY. The negotiation takes place and agreement is reached when both party give something to each other.)
3. The republican conference committee members from the House e.g. James Sensenbrenner, Lamar Smith have in the past not voted against the legal immigrants. Also these people have not made any official statement that is against solving the retrogression problem. If you look at the history they both have on many occassions have voted in favor of H-1 visas.
4. One would argure that few congressman like Tom Tancrado may say that immigration clause should not be in this bill since this is the bill introduce to address the deficit. The simple argument is that then why did he not asked Lamar Smith and James Sensenbrenner to remove the L-1 provision from the House version (unless they treat L-1 visa as something not included in the Immigration subject).
Everyone please keep calling. I do see the light at the end of the tunnel.
khodalmd said:
12/18/2005 (4:45 p.m. EST): House and Senate Schedules Today and S. 1932
The Senate will return to the session at 6:00 p.m. EST. The House has been in session since 1:00 p.m. The activities of the Conference Committee have yet to be disclosed and formalized into a Conference Report.
It appears, however, that the Senate and the House are preparing themselves for the potential conference report being brought to the full floors today. The House leaves open for the today's agenda a potential consideration of Conference Report on H.R. 4241 - Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, the House version of S. 1932. If the Conference Report is presented today, the votes will be taken anytime after 5:00 p.m. EST.
source http://www.immigration-law.com/
Senate and House will meet on respective floors at 6 PM
Adding more to pdakwala's statement:
If the senate/house are going to give in ON ANY OF THESE, ANWR, Medicaid, Student loans, food stamps - SOMETHINGS GOTTA GIVE.
Note this is cut spending increase revenue bill - so, if they are not going to cut student loans, food stamps, they need to figure out some way to increase revenues...logically, it seems that both senate and house versions are Keepers...
All this silence from the senate in the past may have been to not make a big deal about 8001 and 8002 not to flutter the anti-immi lobby, this is only my wishful, in-denial thinking.
BTW, do anybody know where conference committee reports can be accessed?
Pointers appreciated.
Adding more to pdakwala's statement:
If the senate/house are going to give in ON ANY OF THESE, ANWR, Medicaid, Student loans, food stamps - SOMETHINGS GOTTA GIVE.
Note this is cut spending increase revenue bill - so, if they are not going to cut student loans, food stamps, they need to figure out some way to increase revenues...logically, it seems that both senate and house versions are Keepers...
All this silence from the senate in the past may have been to not make a big deal about 8001 and 8002 not to flutter the anti-immi lobby, this is only my wishful, in-denial thinking.
BTW, do anybody know where conference committee reports can be accessed?
Pointers appreciated.
YeahRight!
Registered Users (C)
appan said:
Thanks for the news flash of next session. Dude send faxes or call, u sure make sum difference
higcoptimist
Registered Users (C)
Canadian_Dream said:
Canadian Dream,
It may be the election year in 2006, but remember, the bill AC21, was passed just prior to the Presidential election, late in 1999, and the bill was introduced by Senator Abraham, Republican, MI. My guess is that even during the election year the lawmakers would support the bill as long as it does not do anything to legalaise the illegals.
In the event of a negative outcome now with the current bill, we must and will keep the pressure on the congress and senate to introduce a bill, ASAP, to address the concerns of the hardworking, honest persons who are long striving to be legal immigrants and have not jumped the fence, like the illegals
Hoping they pass the complete senate version of the bill now, including the immigration provisions.
Cheers
EB2_091505
Registered Users (C)
Yes at 6:00
Cspan just flashed that they will be debating budget deficit soon.
Keep calling amd mention you are one of those "Who are awaiting in line & playing by the rule" .
Most of these people get confused between increase in H1 & EB retro.
To nail the issue in their head just tell them YOU ARE ALREADY WAITING IN LINE AND YOU AGREE THAT AMNESTY IS NOT THE WAY TO GO & YOU ARE AGAINST IT.BUT 8001/8002 is FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION
REGARDS,
Currently Commerce secretary is talking about "Why we need to strike a balance" rap.khodalmd said:
Cspan just flashed that they will be debating budget deficit soon.
Keep calling amd mention you are one of those "Who are awaiting in line & playing by the rule" .
Most of these people get confused between increase in H1 & EB retro.
To nail the issue in their head just tell them YOU ARE ALREADY WAITING IN LINE AND YOU AGREE THAT AMNESTY IS NOT THE WAY TO GO & YOU ARE AGAINST IT.BUT 8001/8002 is FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION
REGARDS,
stucklabor
Registered Users (C)
Pdak, grasping at straws
Pdak, I admire your persistence but you are grasping at straws
1. Unfortunately some members may hold the entire bill to ransom and say that they will vote against the bill if it contains provisions they don't like. All the Republicans want the budget bill passed - hence the reconciliation needs to have as few controversial measures as possible. Even our champion Specter may not fight on this one, since he would prioritize the Budget bill over half a million desis. You are using a logical argument that this is a budget bill so they would want to reduce expenses and increase revenue. The anti-immigration folks could counter by socking it to the L1 applicants.
2. I like your definition of negotiation but sometimes one party in the negotiation gets it all. That is the way life is sometimes. Besides, the House could say that they are deferring to the Senate on several issues so the Senate should defer to them on the EB provisions.
3. True. That is the one hope for us.
4. I think the argument of the anti-EB relief Congressmen is not that there are immigration provisions in a Budget bill, but rather the sheer scope of what is being proposed. Remember, if we take 2 dependents to an EB primary applicant, if we remove the dependents from the quota, we are increasing EB immigration by 200%. This sort of sneak attack happens in the US all the time - witness the $300 million bridge in Alaska for 100 people - but unfortunately this is a hot button subject.
Pdak, I admire your persistence but you are grasping at straws
1. Unfortunately some members may hold the entire bill to ransom and say that they will vote against the bill if it contains provisions they don't like. All the Republicans want the budget bill passed - hence the reconciliation needs to have as few controversial measures as possible. Even our champion Specter may not fight on this one, since he would prioritize the Budget bill over half a million desis. You are using a logical argument that this is a budget bill so they would want to reduce expenses and increase revenue. The anti-immigration folks could counter by socking it to the L1 applicants.
2. I like your definition of negotiation but sometimes one party in the negotiation gets it all. That is the way life is sometimes. Besides, the House could say that they are deferring to the Senate on several issues so the Senate should defer to them on the EB provisions.
3. True. That is the one hope for us.
4. I think the argument of the anti-EB relief Congressmen is not that there are immigration provisions in a Budget bill, but rather the sheer scope of what is being proposed. Remember, if we take 2 dependents to an EB primary applicant, if we remove the dependents from the quota, we are increasing EB immigration by 200%. This sort of sneak attack happens in the US all the time - witness the $300 million bridge in Alaska for 100 people - but unfortunately this is a hot button subject.
pdakwala said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Padakwala,
Excellent logical analysis.
My worry is as follow:
1. This bill S 1932 is a baby of Republican. Most likely democrats are voting against this bill as a whole (Even if they aggree with some part of bill)
2. Republican are in majority in both house and Senate
3. They need 100% support from all republican to pass this bill
4. All the republican senator do not have problem with section 8001 in bill. Some handful congressmans donot want immigration package (i don't know why) in bill S 1932 and black mailing all pro-immigrant republicans. There may be very few republican congress man in house.
We need to identify this republican congressmans, who donot want immigration package in the bill and send the massive phone calls (I don't know we have enough time)
5. I think there may not have any resistance amongs conference members for immigration package but republican conference members are only worry for black mailing of few republican congressman as they want to pass S 1932 safely.
6. If republican conference members have water above nose, they will drop immigration package.
Pray to God and identify and start calling handfull republican congressmans.
God bless all of us and the USA
Excellent logical analysis.
My worry is as follow:
1. This bill S 1932 is a baby of Republican. Most likely democrats are voting against this bill as a whole (Even if they aggree with some part of bill)
2. Republican are in majority in both house and Senate
3. They need 100% support from all republican to pass this bill
4. All the republican senator do not have problem with section 8001 in bill. Some handful congressmans donot want immigration package (i don't know why) in bill S 1932 and black mailing all pro-immigrant republicans. There may be very few republican congress man in house.
We need to identify this republican congressmans, who donot want immigration package in the bill and send the massive phone calls (I don't know we have enough time)
5. I think there may not have any resistance amongs conference members for immigration package but republican conference members are only worry for black mailing of few republican congressman as they want to pass S 1932 safely.
6. If republican conference members have water above nose, they will drop immigration package.
Pray to God and identify and start calling handfull republican congressmans.
God bless all of us and the USA
pdakwala said:
The news that conference committee members have drop the immigration provision is not easy to accept if you think logically. Here are some of the reasons:
1. The conference committee members from the Senate have upper hand in negotiation in comparison to the conference committee members from the House because based on the senate version of the bill the immigration provision will bring more revenue than house version. The whole goal of this bill is to control deficit by reducing spending and increasing the revenue. So during the negotiation members will be thinking in terms of reducing the spending and increasing the revenue.
2. The Senate conference committee members will not agree to the removal of the immigration clause from the bill based on the threat that they would vote against the bill if the immigration provision is included in the bill. Reason is that those members who are saying that they would vote against it if the immigration provisions is included are the same people who also voted for L-1 inclusion in the House version of the deficit reduction bill. (BY THE WAY NEGOTIATION DOES NOT TAKE PLACE THAT WAY. The negotiation takes place and agreement is reached when both party give something to each other.)
3. The republican conference committee members from the House e.g. James Sensenbrenner, Lamar Smith have in the past not voted against the legal immigrants. Also these people have not made any official statement that is against solving the retrogression problem. If you look at the history they both have on many occassions have voted in favor of H-1 visas.
4. One would argure that few congressman like Tom Tancrado may say that immigration clause should not be in this bill since this is the bill introduce to address the deficit. The simple argument is that then why did he not asked his buddy Lamar Smith and James Sensenbrenner to remove the L-1 provision from the House version (unless they treat L-1 visa as something not included in the Immigration subject).
5. Someone said that if the immigration clause is included then 20 republicans will vote against this bill. Can someone tell me who are this 20 members. We know only three members are kind of against the immigration clause. And out of these 3 members one that is James Sensenbrenner is not decided. One of the individual in this forum have met James in person and have explained the fact. Based on his judgement Congressman James Sensenbrenner was very polite and have said that he might not oppose the provision that addressess the retrogression. Now since James, Smith and Tom all are buddy they surely would have discussed between themselves before they go to the committee.
The more you think the more you will accept the fact that the news that conference committee will remove the entire immigration clause may not be true.
Everyone please keep calling. I do see the light at the end of the tunnel.
1. The conference committee members from the Senate have upper hand in negotiation in comparison to the conference committee members from the House because based on the senate version of the bill the immigration provision will bring more revenue than house version. The whole goal of this bill is to control deficit by reducing spending and increasing the revenue. So during the negotiation members will be thinking in terms of reducing the spending and increasing the revenue.
2. The Senate conference committee members will not agree to the removal of the immigration clause from the bill based on the threat that they would vote against the bill if the immigration provision is included in the bill. Reason is that those members who are saying that they would vote against it if the immigration provisions is included are the same people who also voted for L-1 inclusion in the House version of the deficit reduction bill. (BY THE WAY NEGOTIATION DOES NOT TAKE PLACE THAT WAY. The negotiation takes place and agreement is reached when both party give something to each other.)
3. The republican conference committee members from the House e.g. James Sensenbrenner, Lamar Smith have in the past not voted against the legal immigrants. Also these people have not made any official statement that is against solving the retrogression problem. If you look at the history they both have on many occassions have voted in favor of H-1 visas.
4. One would argure that few congressman like Tom Tancrado may say that immigration clause should not be in this bill since this is the bill introduce to address the deficit. The simple argument is that then why did he not asked his buddy Lamar Smith and James Sensenbrenner to remove the L-1 provision from the House version (unless they treat L-1 visa as something not included in the Immigration subject).
5. Someone said that if the immigration clause is included then 20 republicans will vote against this bill. Can someone tell me who are this 20 members. We know only three members are kind of against the immigration clause. And out of these 3 members one that is James Sensenbrenner is not decided. One of the individual in this forum have met James in person and have explained the fact. Based on his judgement Congressman James Sensenbrenner was very polite and have said that he might not oppose the provision that addressess the retrogression. Now since James, Smith and Tom all are buddy they surely would have discussed between themselves before they go to the committee.
The more you think the more you will accept the fact that the news that conference committee will remove the entire immigration clause may not be true.
Everyone please keep calling. I do see the light at the end of the tunnel.
YeahRight!
Registered Users (C)
Last edited by a moderator:
We keep hearing that some of the republicans are against this provision but so far except 4 or 5 no body have come forward and have said that. Also all those who are against the immigration provision are not against the whole clause. They may be against some provsions, for E.G. no H1 Visa increase, or may be they are against no exemption of spouse in couting. If that is the case then they can negotiate and can come up with something that would address the retrogression but would not entirely remove the immigration section 8001 and 8002 of s1932
It is true that only republicans will be voting in favor of this bill but that fact exist for all the clauses such as medicare, food stamps and so on in this bill.
Keep pressure on. We are still in the game.
It is true that only republicans will be voting in favor of this bill but that fact exist for all the clauses such as medicare, food stamps and so on in this bill.
Keep pressure on. We are still in the game.
Last edited by a moderator:
The same coverage is available at http://www.fednet.net/asx/sflr.asp also.
"I like your definition of negotiation but sometimes one party in the negotiation gets it all. That is the way life is sometimes. Besides, the House could say that they are deferring to the Senate on several issues so the Senate should defer to them on the EB provisions."stucklabor said:Pdak, I admire your persistence but you are grasping at straws
1. Unfortunately some members may hold the entire bill to ransom and say that they will vote against the bill if it contains provisions they don't like. All the Republicans want the budget bill passed - hence the reconciliation needs to have as few controversial measures as possible. Even our champion Specter may not fight on this one, since he would prioritize the Budget bill over half a million desis. You are using a logical argument that this is a budget bill so they would want to reduce expenses and increase revenue. The anti-immigration folks could counter by socking it to the L1 applicants.
2. I like your definition of negotiation but sometimes one party in the negotiation gets it all. That is the way life is sometimes. Besides, the House could say that they are deferring to the Senate on several issues so the Senate should defer to them on the EB provisions.
3. True. That is the one hope for us.
4. I think the argument of the anti-EB relief Congressmen is not that there are immigration provisions in a Budget bill, but rather the sheer scope of what is being proposed. Remember, if we take 2 dependents to an EB primary applicant, if we remove the dependents from the quota, we are increasing EB immigration by 200%. This sort of sneak attack happens in the US all the time - witness the $300 million bridge in Alaska for 100 people - but unfortunately this is a hot button subject.
My guess is that only the appropriate conference committee members responsible for the immigration are on the negotiation table to discuss not the whole house and senate and not all the conference committee members apointed by the House and Senate. As far as immigration provision is concerned I think that
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Senator Arlen Specter, Senator Edward M. Kennedy and Senator Charles E. Grassley from the Senate side and James Sensenbrenner, Lamar S. Smith, and John Conyers are involved.