SKIL did not go through-AILA pushing H-1B increase!

nyc8300

Registered Users (C)
The SKIL Bill did not go through in late night legislation in Congress on friday evening.
The principle thrust was on H-1B quota increase with very less emphasis on EB related and other components of the bill.

We can hope for illegals, congress and Microsoft to help the legals in 2007....
 
We can hope for illegals, congress and Microsoft to help the legals in 2007

hear that marlon? like it or not, illegals and legals are on the same boat. and groups like fair and numbersusa are not your friends. i don't think that is fair that a person that is hb1 and bene here for five years gets nothing while an illegal that came three years ago gets legal status. both should full legal status.

like it or not, any real enforcement or relief for legals will come as part of a deal that includes illegals.
 
Agreed ....

TheInquisitor said:
hear that marlon? like it or not, illegals and legals are on the same boat. and groups like fair and numbersusa are not your friends. i don't think that is fair that a person that is hb1 and bene here for five years gets nothing while an illegal that came three years ago gets legal status. both should full legal status.

like it or not, any real enforcement or relief for legals will come as part of a deal that includes illegals.

Yes, as much as people like to believe that the legal immigrant issue will be dealt with separately, they need to realize that lawmakers and most of the american public generally do not differentiate between the two issues. They may seem as though they are in favor of legal immigrants and against illegal immigrants but when it comes to actions there is no difference in their approach. Lawmakers take stands that give them some sort of political leverage (the illegal immigrant issues provides this) while the average american get worked up over illegal immigration. None of them are really concerned about the legal immigrant issue.

If there is any relief in '07 (BIG IF), it will be part of a CIR type of bill. We legals need to stop being naive about the real issue.

regards,

saras
 
legal immigrants to Americans are those who already have permanent residence hence the reason for not being concerned with those who are on work visas. Hell, some of them don't know the difference :eek: Anyway, do you think the average American will go to bat for people who 9/10 times probably make more money that they do ?
 
Looks bleak

It looks very bleak ! The democrats do not seem to see this as a high priority issue. Anti-immigration congressmen are too many in the congress.
I do not think the congress or the country is ready to address the immigration issue !

We just have to hang in and pray for the best !
 
Not quite. Democrats consider it a very important issue. Just because they they don't address it in the first 100 hours because they have other issues that are more important/more political advantageous/part of campaign promises/easier to get through, etc.

One of the reason, democrats were reluctant to do it in lame duck congress was that they want to do it later and get the credit for immi-reforms for themselves.

Passing immigration reforms in a lame duck congress was a VERY long shot because it required universal consent!!! It's huge for a controversial issue.

The key thing is that the issue is not dead yet. It keeps coming up in congress every few months. Don't forget, it doesn't matter how many times they fail, they just have to succeed JUST ONCE.

Though, those of you who're expecting to have it next-week will surely be disappointed. Legislation on a controversial issue is a messy long drawn-out process. That's just how it is.

MDGUTS1307 said:
It looks very bleak ! The democrats do not seem to see this as a high priority issue. Anti-immigration congressmen are too many in the congress.
I do not think the congress or the country is ready to address the immigration issue !

We just have to hang in and pray for the best !
 
envision said:
legal immigrants to Americans are those who already have permanent residence hence the reason for not being concerned with those who are on work visas. Hell, some of them don't know the difference :eek: Anyway, do you think the average American will go to bat for people who 9/10 times probably make more money that they do ?

whatever one thinks we should tell them this -- employment based immigration is referred here as legal immigration in this context, comeout and think that a work visa can apply for legal immigration. stop thinking that a work visa is always work visa. many work visas are working here on the promise of immigration otherwise noody would be here for so long. now after a person spends many years in pursuit of immigration, don't comeback and remind that he/she is a work visa.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe not.

MDGUTS1307 said:
It looks very bleak ! The democrats do not seem to see this as a high priority issue. Anti-immigration congressmen are too many in the congress.
I do not think the congress or the country is ready to address the immigration issue !

We just have to hang in and pray for the best !


I agree it is no slam dunk. However it definitely stands a better chance next year rather than this time. They have a golden opportunity to get it done this time with bipartisan agreement. The reason the Dems may not have put it in the 100 hr agenda is because it is a high visibility issue and stokes a lot of emotions especially in the vocal few.
AILA and lawyers in general have more clout with a Dem. House and will surely push this thing at the opportune time.

Besides the elder statesman of the Dem. Party Sen. Kennedy is truly behind it and has already set some moves afoot behind the scenes. My suspicion is the senate will take this up in April or so and send it to the house. Since Pelosi is the one that sets that agenda she should atleast allow a vote given the level of pressure. Once that happens I am confident the vote will be for CIR. Problem all along was a vocal minority holding the silent majority to hostage. There is hope for that to change. We may be in for another year of 1/2 million man marches in LA Chicago and Dallas again but with a more receptive house.
Either way all this needs to conclude before the summer recess or else we can assume we will get nothing before 2009.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cir

alterego2 said:
I agree it is no slam dunk. However it definitely stands a better chance next year rather than this time. They have a golden opportunity to get it done this time with bipartisan agreement. The reason the Dems may not have put it in the 100 hr agenda is because it is a high visibility issue and stokes a lot of emotions especially in the vocal few.
AILA and lawyers in general have more clout with a Dem. House and will surely push this thing at the opportune time.

Besides the elder statesman of the Dem. Party Sen. Kennedy is truly behind it and has already set some moves afoot behind the scenes. My suspicion is the senate will take this up in April or so and send it to the house. Since Pelosi is the one that sets that agenda she should atleast allow a vote given the level of pressure. Once that happens I am confident the vote will be for CIR. Problme all along was a vocal minority holding the silent majority to hostage. There is hope for that to change. We may be in for another year of 1/2 million man marches in LA Chicago and Dallas again but wiht a mroe receptive house.
Either way all this needs to conclude before the summer recess or else we can assume we will get nothing before 2009.

Good analysis. I am almost convinced that legal immigration issues will not be dealt with separately from the illegal immigrant issues. The problem is that the illegal immigrant issues are to controversial and hard to solve while the legal immigrant issues are to limited in scope to gain any sort of real support or political traction. The retrogression is not hurting anyone other than those affected by it. That is the truth and most lawmakers and companies know this. If say the legal immigration problems prevented people from going to work then the legal immigration issues would be taken up and probably resolved in a heartbeat. I am afraid our immigration issues just do not cut it so far as important political issues go and its understandable. Worrying about a few thousand legal immigrants who are just having to wait a few years for their GC will hardly get us any sort of "real" support. I am sure a lot of lawmakers and americans sympathize with our plight but in the big picture they are not convinced that retro is a huge problem. In their mind illegal immigration (security, taxes), the iraq war, border security etc are real issues that need to be dealt with. Legal immigrants unable to file GCs or having to wait for years for their GCs are miniscule problems so far as the the burning issues of the day are concerned. I am afraid nothing can change that in the short term.

We will just have to wait till next year to see what things are in store. Its best to not expect anything till the middle of the year. Even then it will be all about illegal immigration with a few provisions for legal immigrants trying to ride on its coat tails.

cheers,

saras
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I only know one thing

Its getting harder and harder to be patient and Optimistic. Recently I read a quote from Hillary Clinton in Newsweek magazine.

"HOPE IS NOT A STRATEGY"
 
Immigration reform has a chance but not a certainty for the next two years

Immigrant legislation strategy is plotted





Kennedy, McCain, 2 congressmen meet
By Jerry Kammer
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
December 9, 2006

WASHINGTON – Two of the most liberal members of Congress met with two of their most conservative colleagues this week to revive immigration legislation that passed the Senate but was throttled by House Republican leaders who resisted its attempt to grant citizenship to illegal immigrants.



Sen. Edward Kennedy
“The plan is to bring the bill up in late winter,” said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a conservative stalwart who attended the meeting in the office of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. The other participants were Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill.

The strategy session Wednesday came amid speculation about how the dynamics of the immigration debate might change, if at all, when Democrats take control of the House and Senate next month.

Flake said that Kennedy, who will be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, wants to let the new Congress deal first with issues such as the war in Iraq and proposals to raise the minimum wage.

“Then he'll be ready to go” with a new version of the bill that the Senate approved in April.



Sen. John McCain
Republicans ran the show in both houses of Congress then, and passionate divisions in their ranks over immigration policy became a dominant feature of the debate. Democrats, particularly in the House, were mostly content to sit back and enjoy the stalemate, even as they campaigned against the “do-nothing Republican Congress.”

Now Democrats face the hazards of immigration politics.

Immigration-law changes are conspicuously absent from the legislative agenda laid out by incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Observers here say it will be difficult for Pelosi, D-San Francisco, to honor her campaign-season pledge to work for a new comprehensive immigration law without splitting a caucus that includes freshly elected Democrats who vowed to secure the border and crack down on illegal immigration.


The November midterm elections seemed to send mixed messages.



Rep. Luis Gutierrez
In a cliffhanger contest, Arizona Rep. J.D. Hayworth, a conservative Republican and strident foe of illegal immigration, was defeated by Democrat Harry Mitchell.

Immigration advocates such as Ben Johnson of the Immigration Policy Center say Hayworth's defeat showed that immigration “did not turn out to be the firebrand issue that some people thought it could be.”

But immigration restrictionists point out that Mitchell made getting tough on immigration the centerpiece of his campaign. They also say Mitchell cleverly used the issue against Hayworth, saying his Republican opponent was part of a political regime that wasn't competent enough to stop the hundreds of thousands of immigrants that sweep across Arizona's southern border each year.

While Mitchell said he favored legal status for long-established immigrants, he insisted that immigration policy can be fixed only by “members of Congress who are willing to enforce the law, produce real immigration reform and stop playing politics with the issue.”



Rep. Jeff Flake
That enforcement-heavy approach is fine with immigration advocates as long as it is part of a package that provides permanent legal status to those who are beckoned across the border by agriculture, restaurant, construction, landscaping and janitorial jobs. The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is estimated to be at least 11 million.

Immigrant-rights advocates, along with their allies at the National Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations, also support a proposal to provide hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers every year for employers who demonstrate that they are unable to find Americans to fill the slots.

While McCain and Kennedy describe this as a “temporary-worker program,” the legislation they sponsored would put the workers on a path to citizenship.

At a time of anxiety about the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs, the McCain-Kennedy bill's efforts to import low-wage labor has drawn the anger of critics across the political spectrum. That is why Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates immigration restrictions, predicts Pelosi will be reluctant to get behind a proposal that could endanger the new Democratic majority.

“Nancy Pelosi knows the Democrats are on probation for the next two years,” Krikorian said.

He predicted that Pelosi would back less ambitious immigration change, such as a plan to provide legal status to undocumented students, rather than take on the explosive issue of mass legalization, which critics condemn as an amnesty that would spawn more illegal immigration.

But Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, which advocates for immigrant rights, argues that next year will be pivotal because of the presidential race that follows.

“I think that once we hit primary (election) season, controversial issues get a lot harder to do,” Sharry said. “Everybody I talk to says 2007 is the window of opportunity.”
Pelosi was noncommittal this week on whether the House would take up immigration legislation. She sought to deflect some of the responsibility to the White House, suggesting that she expects President Bush to offer more specifics than his call to “match willing worker with willing employer.”


“That's up to the president,” Pelosi said. “We want to work closely with him because it has to be comprehensive and bipartisan.”

President Bush's political advisers, meanwhile, have acknowledged that revamping immigration law may be necessary to shore up sagging support for Republicans among Hispanics, the nation's fastest-growing ethnic group. Republicans received just 30 percent of the Hispanic vote this year, down from 44 percent in 2004.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top