SKIL Bill?

pinnu

Registered Users (C)
Guys

Does anybody know about the details of Senator Cornyn SKIL (Securing Knowledge Innovation and Leadership) bill which he is going to introduce to Senate anytime now? I heard that this bill is pro legal immigrant aiming to end retrogression to some extent (or may be great extent). Any ideas?
 
check fragomen.com

it has all the details regarding the bill. seems to have some curious provisions.
pinnu said:
Guys

Does anybody know about the details of Senator Cornyn SKIL (Securing Knowledge Innovation and Leadership) bill which he is going to introduce to Senate anytime now? I heard that this bill is pro legal immigrant aiming to end retrogression to some extent (or may be great extent). Any ideas?
 
Source: http://pubweb.fdbl.com/news1.nsf/9a...87bc9c5e0e20eae085257162006a03c8?OpenDocument

Senator Introduces Bill To Facilitate Access to Skilled Workers
05/02/2006

Senate Immigration Subcommittee Chairman John Cornyn introduced the Securing Knowledge, Innovation, and Leadership Act of 2006, or SKIL Act (S. 2691) today. The bill appears to have wide support from the business community. Prior to introduction, Senator Cornyn worked closely with the immigrant and business communities, including the American Council on International Personnel (ACIP) and the Compete America Coalition, to identify and propose the removal of the obstacles U.S. employers face in recruiting and retaining the most qualified workers.

If enacted, the SKIL Act would provide substantial relief to the current backlog and visa shortage that have hindered the recruitment and retention of highly educated and highly skilled professionals from around the world, including those educated at U.S. universities but unable to stay in the U.S. as a result of the visa shortage. Specifically, the SKIL bill would provide the following changes to current law:

1. Increasing the Annual H-1B Quota and Providing Exemptions


Increases the annual H-1B cap to 115,000 from 65,000, with a 20% increase for the following year if the quota is reached.
Modifies the existing 20,000 cap exemption to apply to persons holding master's or higher degree from a foreign institution (current law limits eligibility to U.S. institutions), and exempts from the cap persons who have earned a master's or higher degree from a U.S. institution, as well as those who have been awarded "medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience in the United States."

2. Increasing the Quota and Providing Exemptions for Employment-Based Immigrant Visa Categories

Increases the annual cap on employment-based visas from 140,000 to 290,000, and allows for the recapture of unused visas from FY 2001 to 2005.
Exempts from the quota persons who:
o Hold a master's or higher degree from a U.S. institution;
o Were awarded "medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience in the United States";
o Are spouses or minor children of the principal applicant;
o Hold a master's or higher degree in science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) (from any country) and who have worked in the U.S. for at least three years in a related field;
o Are deemed to have "extraordinary ability" or are eligible for "national interest" waivers as defined in immigration law; or
o Are employed in an occupation that the Department of Labor (DOL) deems to be lacking sufficient "able, willing, qualified and available" U.S. workers.
Applies "equally qualified" standard for purposes of labor certification to those who received a master's or higher degree from a U.S. institution, or who were awarded "medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience in the United States." Under current law, employers are typically required to consider all minimally qualified U.S. workers for a position even if less qualified than the foreign national for whom the employer is seeking certification. Under the "equally qualified" standard, only job applicants who are equally or better qualified than the foreign national listed on the labor certification would need to be considered.

3. Relaxes Restriction on Recruitment of U.S.-Educated Talent

Extends optional practical training from 12 to 24 months.
Removes the bar on immigrant intent for F-1 students studying at institutions of higher learning or engaging in optional practical training in a STEM field.

4. Streamlines the Visa and Labor Certification Process

Allows L visa holders to extend the visa beyond the period of authorized stay if there is a pending adjustment application.
Allows those with approved labor certifications to apply for adjustment of status by paying a $500 fee, even if there is no visa immediately available.
Permits domestic visa revalidation, meaning that professionals working in the U.S. on nonimmigrant visas would not have to leave the country to renew their visas.
Requires DOL to process all backlogged applications filed prior to the implementation of the PERM system within 60 days of the bill's enactment.
Requires the labor agency to respond to prevailing wage determination requests within 20 days, and to respond to employers who submit an acceptable alternative wage survey within 30 days.
Requires DOL to establish a process to make technical corrections on labor certifications without requiring employers to conduct additional recruitment.
Requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish, within 180 days of enactment, a pre-certification process for employers who file multiple visa petitions, and a similar process for premium processing of employment-based immigrant petitions.
Allows premium processing of employment-based immigrant visa petitions with payment of an additional fee.

Fragomen will closely monitor the SKIL bill as it moves through the legislative process along with developments in the ongoing immigration reform efforts in the Senate. We will provide regular updates as developments occur.

Copyright © 2006 by Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP
 
All bills have the employment based provision. All they need is to approve it...

Good Luck to all.
 
Jackolantern said:
This bill is way too generous. It will never be accepted by the House.
My understanding is that House's problem is with amnesty and treatment to illegal immigrants. Do they a problem with legal immigrants as well? Sb fill me up on this.
 
We need the legal bill separate from illegal bills. Otherwise we will be struct in this stupid waiting line for ever. Imagine any sort of legalisation to these illegals, the USCIS will be swarmped and it will take 7-10 years even for 140
 
I think they should pass this bill if they are serious

By experience any immigration bill is debated and poured into water for the past 3 years by the politicians.Don;t be too serious about this bill too.Having said this if this bill get through it will be a miracle and end to our suffering.
Any one knows when they are going to discuss this bill? or who are the sponsers?
 
Our hope.

I think this is our hope. I talked to my attorney yesterday and I felt that he is very deffensive, trying to explain that AILA - including himself - supports the legalization of illegal aliens but he is saying that I should not worry because that would not harm us the same way 245i did. I don't buy that. Pay attention that even if illegal aliens are supposed to "wait in line" to apply for citizenship, the burden on USCIS could be tremendous even if a guest-worker document is granted.

It seems that the strategy in general, is the inclusion of highly controversial topics with more moderate and acceptable items. The problem is that in this case, our acceptable issue - the increase in visa numbers - may be again hurt by such highly controversial illegal alien bill. Here is an e-mail I sent to Mathew Oh regarding his recent article:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,



I am glad that Sen. Cornyn introduced S.2691 and contrary to your belief, I believe that splitting the bills is our best chance. S.1932 failed not because that addressed employment related issues only, but because lobbysts included the controversial H1B increase in visa numbers there. Also, S.1932 was attached to a budget bill and many immigration reduction groups perceived that as a deceptive attempt. I don't blame them.


Pro Illegal alien bills are getting more and more controversial and chances to pass such provisions are slim. The employment base immigrant issues should not be dealt in the same bill. If you follow various talk radio shows you will see that the majority of Americans are against such legalization of illegal aliens. Illegimitate polls can show the opposite for sure, but the ultimate poll will be performed on November 2006.

Let me take this opportunity to express that I find disgusting the position that most AILA attorneys are taking. I know most of you support the legalization of illegal aliens due to profit opportunities. Even If that means that 11-20 million of amnesty or guest-worker applications could overhelm again the employment based immigrants with way more harm and intensity than the 245(i) law has caused.


Thanks,

Marlon





By introduction of S. 2691, Senator Cornyn practically joins the original Bill Frist bill that strongly supported legal immigration and strongly opposed legalization of illegal aliens by focusing on the border security and the immigration enforcement. Question remains whether the legal immigration bill can pass the Congress as separate from the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation. We are concerned that this bill may bring a further division between the legal immigrant community and the illegal immigrant community with the potential damaging consequences to both legal and illegal communities. We have maintained a tradition of strongly supporting legal employment-based immigration. We just hope that the legal and illegal reform legislation does not end up with the fate of S. 1932 as driven by the political forces using the traditional battle tactic of 'divide and conquer.' From the perspectives of the legal employment-based immigrant community, all of the pending bills support their interest and they will be least affected by whichever bill the Congress finally would pass. This is a time to unite and not a time to divide.


baby_mde said:
Yes, we need a leagal bill seperate from illegal bill. Then we do not have to get stuck.
 
hello all skil bill how to follow

Hello all,

Does anyone know when the skil bill will comup for discussion and the
time it takes for it to become a law... Some of us already asked the
same question, but I dont see any good responses.

Somebody mentioned that this is just "introduced" and by that it meant,
that its in queue to come up for discussion on the floor.

Any input on the process, timing is appreciated.

Thank you.
ac
 
Actually, an introduced bill isn't in que of any kind. It may not be discussed at all. Majority and Minority leaders decide what will be debated on the floor of the senate. Unless those two schedule any debate on this, we just might never hear of it again.

for_ac21 said:
Hello all,

Does anyone know when the skil bill will comup for discussion and the
time it takes for it to become a law... Some of us already asked the
same question, but I dont see any good responses.

Somebody mentioned that this is just "introduced" and by that it meant,
that its in queue to come up for discussion on the floor.

Any input on the process, timing is appreciated.

Thank you.
ac
 
Cornyn bill as I read it is better than the other bills for US Masters holders in non STEM area ex someone like myself with an MBA.

As far as I read it basically it says to be quota exempt you should

1) Have Masters or higher from US Univ.

2) Have Masters in STEM and 3 yrs exp. (even if Masters is from outside US).

So based on this logic even if someone has MA in English from US Univ they will be quota exempt, correct ???
 
It will not see the light of day ..

texancanadian said:
Cornyn bill as I read it is better than the other bills for US Masters holders in non STEM area ex someone like myself with an MBA.

As far as I read it basically it says to be quota exempt you should

1) Have Masters or higher from US Univ.

2) Have Masters in STEM and 3 yrs exp. (even if Masters is from outside US).

So based on this logic even if someone has MA in English from US Univ they will be quota exempt, correct ???

Guys and Gals,

Only the comprehensive immigration bill will be considered this year. That is my thinking. Although this is a great bill there isn't enough leverage to convince the Senate and the House to take it up and push it through. It will be added to the pile of other such bills that are introduced and then never talked about again. I hope I am wrong but I am pretty sure this is what will happen.

regards,

saras
 
Good analysis by attorney oh

Guys and Gals,

Here is what I read on attorney Mathew Ohs website. I think it makes a lot of sense.

By introduction of S. 2691, Senator Cornyn practically joins the original Bill Frist bill that strongly supported legal immigration and strongly opposed legalization of illegal aliens by focusing on the border security and the immigration enforcement. Question remains whether the legal immigration bill can pass the Congress as separate from the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation. We are concerned that this bill may bring a further division between the legal immigrant community and the illegal immigrant community with the potential damaging consequences to both legal and illegal communities. We have maintained a tradition of strongly supporting legal employment-based immigration. We just hope that the legal and illegal reform legislation does not end up with the fate of S. 1932 as driven by the political forces using the traditional battle tactic of 'divide and conquer.' From the perspectives of the legal employment-based immigrant community, all of the pending bills support their interest and they will be least affected by whichever bill the Congress finally would pass. This is a time to unite and not a time to divide.

regards,

saras
 
Of course it should be separate from CIR bill!!!
If the SKIL bill falls and the CIR bill passes, then the US Gov is sending us a very strong message already... "we prefer cheaters".
The SKIL bill should be separately voted on... so then we know just how sincere those politicians are.
 
Too many bills means none will pass

ufo2002 said:
Of course it should be separate from CIR bill!!!
If the SKIL bill falls and the CIR bill passes, then the US Gov is sending us a very strong message already... "we prefer cheaters".
The SKIL bill should be separately voted on... so then we know just how sincere those politicians are.

ufo2002,

The greater the number of bills, the greater the divide in the Senate and House. I think the whole purpose of introducing other immigration bills while the CIR is pending is to create further divisions in the Senate and House. Senators that are opposed to the CIR are using competing bills to drive away support from the CIR. The final outcome is that none of the bills get any substantial support and all of them get rejected. Those Senators and Congressman opposed to the CIR are more concerned about making sure that the CIR fails than actually providing immigration relief to legals. They are skillfully using pro-legal bills to weaken the CIR bill. They are not concerned about legal immigration. Its very clear to me. I think we all need to wake up to reality. Politics is a dirty game and we are seeing a glaring example of this right now ..

regards,

saras
 
Come on

If you buy his analysis ? You don't realize that all he wants is to keep a reasonable immigration provision (our EB visa number increase) attached to the highly controversial bill so that supporters of guest-workers/amnesty can have better chances. AILA doesn't care if we take a hit and our applications get overhelmed again as it did by the 245(i). All immigration attorneys see is a profit opportunity. His analysis from the motives which S.1932 got killed is probably wrong. S.1932 failed because it contained the highly controversial H1B visa number increase and it was discussed during a budget meeting. Kind of deceptive game there.

saras76 said:
Guys and Gals,

Here is what I read on attorney Mathew Ohs website. I think it makes a lot of sense.

By introduction of S. 2691, Senator Cornyn practically joins the original Bill Frist bill that strongly supported legal immigration and strongly opposed legalization of illegal aliens by focusing on the border security and the immigration enforcement. Question remains whether the legal immigration bill can pass the Congress as separate from the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation. We are concerned that this bill may bring a further division between the legal immigrant community and the illegal immigrant community with the potential damaging consequences to both legal and illegal communities. We have maintained a tradition of strongly supporting legal employment-based immigration. We just hope that the legal and illegal reform legislation does not end up with the fate of S. 1932 as driven by the political forces using the traditional battle tactic of 'divide and conquer.' From the perspectives of the legal employment-based immigrant community, all of the pending bills support their interest and they will be least affected by whichever bill the Congress finally would pass. This is a time to unite and not a time to divide.

regards,

saras
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top