Trump attacks Diversity Visa program

[DanE1978]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...enate-group-has-deal-on-daca-gop-senators-say

This article from an hour ago says they have a deal in progress that doesn't touch family immigration or the DV lottery...

So at the moment until something is signed into law it isn't worth freaking people out that they may cut off dv2018, as who knows the DV lottery may survive, or it may be gone tomorrow, it's all a guessing game

On the flip side, Trump is threatening to veto any immigration legislation that doesn't run along the lines of his "four pillars", which include the elimination of the DV:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/14/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

MJS_DV2018_EU - what is the number of the bill you are referring to?

 

[DanE1978]

There was one bill I saw that mentioned a reallocation of the visas from several categories, of which DV was one, immediately "as required by approved DACA related applications" sort of idea. This has the potential to affect DV2018 and to believe otherwise is foolish. If something like that gets approved, then higher numbers would have to be a little concerned.

HOWEVER, remember that there's a typical pace of these things and the number of approved DACA related applications that could be processed by Sept 30 would be limited. The visas would come from the pool of unassigned visas, so anyone with an interview scheduled would be unaffected. So even if something like this did pass, MOST of DV2018 would be unaffected.

The bill I saw stated that the number of reallocated visas could not exceed the number of approved DACA related applications. And there were 2-3 other categories from which visas could be pulled to meet this demand as well.

A reallocation of visas to meet DACA demands does make more sense and may be more palatable to Dems than a cancellation, so I don't think it is impossible that the idea will be presented. But I think it would affect 2019 more than 2018 in any case.

What is the bill number? Oddly, Trump's threat might prove to be a good thing in this sense, prompting a stalemate that would prevent sensible deals of this kind, which ironically are potentially worse for current winners.

 

[MJS_DV2018_EU]

It's Issa's "DACA Compromise Act" (H.R.4873) and it isn't the bill itself that's an issue, as of course these things last 10 minutes before changing or being scrapped. But Issa is a significant "voice in the ear" of the President, and a re-allocation isn't a completely absurd idea to present. All bills proposing cancellation of the DV altogether were limited by an effective date that would explicitly exclude DV2018 from its action. Issa's proposal does not.

FlyingDonkey: Everything I've been seeing states just the opposite - no deal without all 4 pillars. In fact, the most recent news seems to suggest Trump is backing a proposal by Chuck Grassley that includes (ahem... unsurprisingly) a re-allocation of the DV to clear backlog in other categories. At this moment, we haven't seen an effective date mentioned.

 

[DanE1978]

It's Issa's "DACA Compromise Act" (H.R.4873) and it isn't the bill itself that's an issue, as of course these things last 10 minutes before changing or being scrapped. But Issa is a significant "voice in the ear" of the President, and a re-allocation isn't a completely absurd idea to present. All bills proposing cancellation of the DV altogether were limited by an effective date that would explicitly exclude DV2018 from its action. Issa's proposal does not.

FlyingDonkey: Everything I've been seeing states just the opposite - no deal without all 4 pillars. In fact, the most recent news seems to suggest Trump is backing a proposal by Chuck Grassley that includes (ahem... unsurprisingly) a re-allocation of the DV to clear backlog in other categories. At this moment, we haven't seen an effective date mentioned.

Actually they just released the bill and it calls for the elimination of the DV, with the usual effective date:
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Secure and Succeed Act of 2018.pdf

(1) GRANDFATHERED PETITIONS AND VISAS.— Notwithstanding the elimination under this section of the diversity visa program described in sections 547 MDM18232 S.L.C. 1 201(e) and 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(e); 1153(c)) (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act), the amendments made by this section shall not apply, and visas shall remain available, to any alien whom the Secretary of State has selected to participate in the diversity visa lottery for fiscal year 2018.

 

[MJS_DV2018_EU]

You beat me to it! I was just having a read myself.

 

[DanE1978]

You beat me to it! I was just having a read myself.

It seems somewhat redundant to have both the grandfathering clause and an effective date that effectively grandfathers the FY2018 winners, but it is interesting that they saw fit to specifically add the clause. The wording is a bit obscure though - "selected to participate in the diversity visa lottery"? Makes you wonder if they mean to grandfather even the FY2019 winners, but the wording of the next paragraph seems to contradict that. Perhaps they are mixing up the fiscal years?

 

[MJS_DV2018_EU]

It seems somewhat redundant to have both the grandfathering clause and an effective date that effectively grandfathers the FY2018 winners, but it is interesting that they saw fit to specifically add the clause. The wording is a bit obscure though - "selected to participate in the diversity visa lottery"? Makes you wonder if they mean to grandfather even the FY2019 winners, but the wording of the next paragraph seems to contradict that. Perhaps they are mixing up the fiscal years?

I don't think this particular bill would protect DV2019. If the administration has any compassion at all, then should this bill (or something like it) pass before the May draw for DV2019, they wouldn't even draw DV2019. The lost "hope" of a 0.5% chance is one thing. Crossing that hurdle, being drawn, and THEN losing your chance? Gut-wrenching and cruel.

 

[DanE1978]

I don't think this particular bill would protect DV2019. If the administration has any compassion at all, then should this bill (or something like it) pass before the May draw for DV2019, they wouldn't even draw DV2019. The lost "hope" of a 0.5% chance is one thing. Crossing that hurdle, being drawn, and THEN losing your chance? Gut-wrenching and cruel.

It seems like they are trying to have their cake and eat it whole - I think they are anticipating the bill passing after the May draw (to which they seem to be mistakenly referring to as the FY2018 lottery?) and intend to grandfather the winners (why else have a grandfathering clause? The current winners are already protected by the effective date), but at the same time they are allocating the very same visas starting at FY2019. I'm guessing that if this is a mistake, the 2019 allocation stays and the grandfathering goes out the window - and hopefully it won't take the effective date with it along the way... (although everything seems to indicate that they mean to begin with the allocation only on FY2019).

 

[Britsimon]

You're basing that on the assumption that, even if such a (re-allocation) proposal got passed, progress on DACA individuals' applications couldn't be quick enough to affect DV2018. That's probably true. But there's no effective date restriction crafted into the particular bill to which I am referring.

I'm basing it on several things, but in particular I see no reason to freak out because of one badly crafted suggested BS bill that is unlikely to go anywhere doesn't observe the normal lawmaking timelines that other suggested bills are observing, and at the same time DACA deals and DACA rulings are changing the landscape constantly and meanwhile Trump and crew can't even get out of their own way with basic HR issues. So - like I said - "foolish" would be to believe the point you were making, not the other way around.

 

[SusieQQQ]

It seems somewhat redundant to have both the grandfathering clause and an effective date that effectively grandfathers the FY2018 winners, but it is interesting that they saw fit to specifically add the clause. The wording is a bit obscure though - "selected to participate in the diversity visa lottery"? Makes you wonder if they mean to grandfather even the FY2019 winners, but the wording of the next paragraph seems to contradict that. Perhaps they are mixing up the fiscal years?

There are no selected DV2019 winners yet. And all they have to do is not select them in May, in the event that this negotiation goes on for months. I am pretty much 100% sure that there will not be a DV2019. Maybe they specifically mentioned DV2018 because an approved petition (which is what generally falls under grandfathering) and being selected for DV are not quite the same thing. (An approved petition has established a prima facie basis for sponsoring an immigrant; for DV the eligibility case gets presented at interview, it is not adjudged beforehand).

 

[MJS_DV2018_EU]

So - like I said - "foolish" would be to believe the point you were making, not the other way around.

I'll MORE than happily be a fool and have you proven right in this case. ;-)

 

[MJS_DV2018_EU]

There are no selected DV2019 winners yet. And all they have to do is not select them in May, in the event that this negotiation goes on for months. I am pretty much 100% sure that there will not be a DV2019. Maybe they specifically mentioned DV2018 because an approved petition (which is what generally falls under grandfathering) and being selected for DV are not quite the same thing. (An approved petition has established a prima facie basis for sponsoring an immigrant; for DV the eligibility case gets presented at interview, it is not adjudged beforehand).

I think the point he's making is that the Effective Date specifically of the pertinent section re: DV already makes it effective Oct. 1 or later. Nothing to do with grandfathering, which I'm sure is relevant to other sections, so the specific additional protection of DV2018 appears redundant on the surface. The way I read it is the CANCELLATION of DV is effective Oct. 1 (if the bill or something like it passes) but also, separately, the RE-ALLOCATION cannot affect DV2018. Maybe without the additional clause it's too ambiguous whether re-allocation begins immediately to clear the backlog? In any case, better to over-state than under.

 

[SusieQQQ]

I think the point he's making is that the Effective Date specifically of the pertinent section re: DV already makes it effective Oct. 1 or later. Nothing to do with grandfathering, which I'm sure is relevant to other sections, so the specific additional protection of DV2018 appears redundant on the surface. The way I read it is the CANCELLATION of DV is effective Oct. 1 (if the bill or something like it passes) but also, separately, the RE-ALLOCATION cannot affect DV2018. Maybe without the additional clause it's too ambiguous whether re-allocation begins immediately to clear the backlog? In any case, better to over-state than under.

Or maybe, like trump, they’re just clueless about how DV actually works. Who knows.

By the way the post I responded to didn’t mention the date, and i wasn’t going to wade through the 592 page attachment to find it. No that isn’t a typo.

 

[MJS_DV2018_EU]

Or maybe, like trump, they’re just clueless about how DV actually works. Who knows.

Yeah, actually, that's very likely if they believe DV2018 applications can carry forward into 2019. I didn't even think of that.

 

[Mushy_hot]

I'm basing it on several things, but in particular I see no reason to freak out because of one badly crafted suggested BS bill that is unlikely to go anywhere doesn't observe the normal lawmaking timelines that other suggested bills are observing, and at the same time DACA deals and DACA rulings are changing the landscape constantly and meanwhile Trump and crew can't even get out of their own way with basic HR issues. So - like I said - "foolish" would be to believe the point you were making, not the other way around.

Nothing to add.

 

[DanE1978]

I think the point he's making is that the Effective Date specifically of the pertinent section re: DV already makes it effective Oct. 1 or later. Nothing to do with grandfathering, which I'm sure is relevant to other sections, so the specific additional protection of DV2018 appears redundant on the surface. The way I read it is the CANCELLATION of DV is effective Oct. 1 (if the bill or something like it passes) but also, separately, the RE-ALLOCATION cannot affect DV2018. Maybe without the additional clause it's too ambiguous whether re-allocation begins immediately to clear the backlog? In any case, better to over-state than under.

That seems like a reasonable reading of their legislative intentions, even though whichever way we look at it the grandfathering clause still remains redundant - since they specifically note that the allocation of the visas will start on FY2019, there is nothing to shield FY2018 winners from. It's hard to avoid they conclusion that the drafters aren't really sure how the DV works, which is one of the reasons why I can't bring myself to share Britsimon's optimism. They might end up canceling the FY2018 lottery without even meaning to, due to sheer ignorance and nobody caring enough to correct the mistake.

 

[DanE1978]

Or maybe, like trump, they’re just clueless about how DV actually works. Who knows.

By the way the post I responded to didn’t mention the date, and i wasn’t going to wade through the 592 page attachment to find it. No that isn’t a typo.

The effective date they refer to is the same one all other dv-elimination bills use - the first day of the fiscal year that begins on or after the year the law is enacted. As MJS notes, this isn't true of the Issa "allocation" bill, which makes frightening sense. In this sense the curreny Grassley bill is interesting since it is both an elimination and an allocation bill, but unlike the Issa it specifically shields FY2018 from both threats - even though it does so in a redundant way.

 

[Britsimon]

That seems like a reasonable reading of their legislative intentions, even though whichever way we look at it the grandfathering clause still remains redundant - since they specifically note that the allocation of the visas will start on FY2019, there is nothing to shield FY2018 winners from. It's hard to avoid they conclusion that the drafters aren't really sure how the DV works, which is one of the reasons why I can't bring myself to share Britsimon's optimism. They might end up canceling the FY2018 lottery without even meaning to, due to sheer ignorance and nobody caring enough to correct the mistake.

It's not optimism. It's common sense. Really.

 

[Britsimon]

http://britsimonsays.com/update-political-changes-immigration/

 

[DanE1978]

It's not optimism. It's common sense. Really.

Optimism is to believe that Congress necessarily abides by common sense.