The leaked White House Immigration Proposal in Nutshell

[msyedy]

Originally Posted by wildvoice

After hearing so many contending issues w/ regards to immigration, there are 3 areas that need to be tackled: illegal immigration, legal (skilled) immigration, and family immigration.

Maybe IV can whisper these things in the halls of Congress. I enumerate these ideas starting from the very controversial up to the least controversial:

1. Illegal immigration - there is no sense of telling them to come out from the shadows, register and go back to their countries and re-enter again since the greatest fear of an illegal is not being allowed to come back. If legal h1b people are scared of this thought if ever they have to renew from consulates outside US, how much more for the illegals. The main purpose of why these people come here is to work, they only aspire for a green card and later on citizenship since they want their immediate families to be with them.

Solution: Let them pay for first an amount affordable and reasonable (not US$10k, this is too much for them, 5k will do) for their violations.Give them a working visa card valid for 15 years with the option to apply for a GC after that once they can establish a good and continuous work history and no criminal violations. They also should not be out of work for more than a year unless they have severe illnesses or they will be out of status and be deported. Their wife and unmarried children can join them w/ no work restrictions. They can petition their sibling or parents only when they become a citizen or a GC holder.

2. Family (chain) migration - They have to limit this for immediate family members only. Parents can't petition a married child.

3. Legal immigrants - IV proposals on this area to fix retrogression is acceptable already. H1B should not have cap restrictions. Let employers be allowed to hire workers as long as they can prove that there are no americans qualified and available to do the job in close coordination w/ DOLE.

I think these proposals might be appealing to all sides.

Wah Kya jawab hai. I wonder why didn't congress think of these points.you mentioned.

I have a very good solution to this problem. (Legal, Illegal, family) immigration

Why don't we ask congress to consult
PEER SYED SAHIB in london.


---
could you please translate any foriegn language phrases you have used for the benefit of our members. We discourage usage of language other than english in the posts. Thanks. -Admin.

[msp1976]

This proposal could be a bloody disaster for us..
'Green card rebalancing to occur only after the hard triggers are met'

That could be bloody 5 years...
How many of us are gonna be around in another 5 years.???

In the meanwhile a little bit of economic downturn occurs...They might scrap the doggone act and then we are left with nothing....

I am really worried about this damn proposal....This is going to divide the ranks of immigrants against each other...The family based immigrants are going to go against EB based immigrants now...Also the illegals are gonna be against the legals...It is such a damn clever ploy.....'divide and rule'...

Apologies for the foul language.I am not in a good mood after getting NOF from PBEC...

[senthil1]

If you wait 5 years then PD will move and you will get GC and no need for CIR or skil. Especially EB2 will move fast after october. EB3 will have atleast 1 year delay. Now waiting time is 5.5 years. Next year it will be 6 to 6.5 years. But some times it may move fast also

Originally Posted by msp1976

This proposal could be a bloody disaster for us..
'Green card rebalancing to occur only after the hard triggers are met'

That could be bloody 5 years...
How many of us are gonna be around in another 5 years.???

In the meanwhile a little bit of economic downturn occurs...They might scrap the doggone act and then we are left with nothing....

I am really worried about this damn proposal....This is going to divide the ranks of immigrants against each other...The family based immigrants are going to go against EB based immigrants now...Also the illegals are gonna be against the legals...It is such a damn clever ploy.....'divide and rule'...

Apologies for the foul language.I am not in a good mood after getting NOF from PBEC...

[vagish]

folks,
there is a concept of posthumous citizenship , for those immigrants who died
in IRAQ fighting for this country, can we ask the same thing for us. Because I figure it out, that the way
retrogression is going on, it may be impposible to obtain green card in this life time.
May be they could consider us giving posthumous green cards, considering the fact that we fought bravely against retrogression.

thanks

[rsayed]

Originally Posted by msyedy

Wah Kya jawab hai. I wonder why didn't congress think of these points.you mentioned.

I have a very good solution to this problem. (Legal, Illegal, family) immigration

Why don't we ask congress to consult
PEER SYED SAHIB in london.


---
could you please translate any foriegn language phrases you have used for the benefit of our members. We discourage usage of language other than english in the posts. Thanks. -Admin.

Clarification: Pee Syed Sahib is "supposedly" a spiritual saint whose claim to fame is "Your problems solved - Guaranteed". His ads appear in the local "desi" papers you find at Indian restaurants, grocery stores, etc.

[alterego]

STRIVE and the WH Proposals are the most liberal and most conservative end proposals being put out in the current debate. I see them as points from which negotiations will start. If you notice they are less far apart than the debate last time, ie (felony and fence) vs (near amnesty and market driven future labour stream).
Already the immigration liberals like La Raza have stated that STRIVE is too far to the right and the Conservative restrictionists like Rep. Bilbray have stated that the WH proposal is too liberal. That gives you an idea of what a tightrope this issue has become. At this time, given the choice I suspect the liberals will grudgingly take the STRIVE bill and the conservatives the WH proposal.

The WH proposal has the signature of Sens. Kyl and Cornyn all over it. Likewise the Guttierez one has Sen. Kennedy's one. Sen. McCain has gone "AWOL" in this debate due to his presidential ambitions. He was left with no choice politically given how strongly conservatives feel about this issue as he found out on the campaign trail in Iowa, perhaps on average more conservative than the nation as a whole.

In the end it will all come down to how much the WH, the big congressional players in this and the Congress in general want to pass something, and how much time and elbow grease goes into consensus building. Atleast in public they are stating they are motivated enough.
The funny part is that I am sure they will all agree that they should do something. Problem is doing nothing is a 2nd choice for everyone and they all seem to agree with that.....a consensus! It will be a sad indictment on all of them if they can't work out a consensus solution, but this time especially the Dems. will end up with more of the blame since they are in the majority.

All in all, call me an optimist but I think we will see something emerge this summer, how it will look in the end is a matter of speculation. I suspect it will look like something between STRIVE and the WH proposal but perhaps more to the WH proposal side. It will likely emerge with 70-80% of Dem. votes and 30-40% of Republican ones. I am sure the older Dems. like Kennedy realise that even if they sweep the elections again in 2008, the republicans will be a thorn in their side on this issue and obstruct anything from passing, they are even seeing some opposition within their own ranks with the so called blue dog democrats. It would be far better for their constituents if they can get something with a shared responsibility and burden on such a thorny issue and especially with a president in the WH who has no election to ever run in again. They could then try to build on that after 2008.

[GC08]

Originally Posted by senthil1

If you wait 5 years then PD will move and you will get GC and no need for CIR or skil. Especially EB2 will move fast after october. EB3 will have atleast 1 year delay. Now waiting time is 5.5 years. Next year it will be 6 to 6.5 years. But some times it may move fast also

Why 5 years? Isn't that if they start moving more visa #s to EB categories, those in the backlogs will get GC sooner???

[senthil1]

Another 5 to 6 years waiting time is for those who filed in Eb3 after 2004 or 2005. Those who are having PD between 2001 to 2004 should get within 6 months to 3 years time. Eb2 will not be that much worse. The waiting time must be between 3 to 5 years for Eb2.

Originally Posted by GC08

Why 5 years? Isn't that if they start moving more visa #s to EB categories, those in the backlogs will get GC sooner???

[bugmenot]

i second that

Originally Posted by alterego

STRIVE and the WH Proposals are the most liberal and most conservative end proposals being put out in the current debate. I see them as points from which negotiations will start. If you notice they are less far apart than the debate last time, ie (felony and fence) vs (near amnesty and market driven future labour stream).
Already the immigration liberals like La Raza have stated that STRIVE is too far to the right and the Conservative restrictionists like Rep. Bilbray have stated that the WH proposal is too liberal. That gives you an idea of what a tightrope this issue has become. At this time, given the choice I suspect the liberals will grudgingly take the STRIVE bill and the conservatives the WH proposal.

The WH proposal has the signature of Sens. Kyl and Cornyn all over it. Likewise the Guttierez one has Sen. Kennedy's one. Sen. McCain has gone "AWOL" in this debate due to his presidential ambitions. He was left with no choice politically given how strongly conservatives feel about this issue as he found out on the campaign trail in Iowa, perhaps on average more conservative than the nation as a whole.

In the end it will all come down to how much the WH, the big congressional players in this and the Congress in general want to pass something, and how much time and elbow grease goes into consensus building. Atleast in public they are stating they are motivated enough.
The funny part is that I am sure they will all agree that they should do something. Problem is doing nothing is a 2nd choice for everyone and they all seem to agree with that.....a consensus! It will be a sad indictment on all of them if they can't work out a consensus solution, but this time especially the Dems. will end up with more of the blame since they are in the majority.

All in all, call me an optimist but I think we will see something emerge this summer, how it will look in the end is a matter of speculation. I suspect it will look like something between STRIVE and the WH proposal but perhaps more to the WH proposal side. It will likely emerge with 70-80% of Dem. votes and 30-40% of Republican ones. I am sure the older Dems. like Kennedy realise that even if they sweep the elections again in 2008, the republicans will be a thorn in their side on this issue and obstruct anything from passing, they are even seeing some opposition within their own ranks with the so called blue dog democrats. It would be far better for their constituents if they can get something with a shared responsibility and burden on such a thorny issue and especially with a president in the WH who has no election to ever run in again. They could then try to build on that after 2008.

[msyedy]

Originally Posted by alterego

STRIVE and the WH Proposals are the most liberal and most conservative end proposals being put out in the current debate. I see them as points from which negotiations will start. If you notice they are less far apart than the debate last time, ie (felony and fence) vs (near amnesty and market driven future labour stream).
Already the immigration liberals like La Raza have stated that STRIVE is too far to the right and the Conservative restrictionists like Rep. Bilbray have stated that the WH proposal is too liberal. That gives you an idea of what a tightrope this issue has become. At this time, given the choice I suspect the liberals will grudgingly take the STRIVE bill and the conservatives the WH proposal.

The WH proposal has the signature of Sens. Kyl and Cornyn all over it. Likewise the Guttierez one has Sen. Kennedy's one. Sen. McCain has gone "AWOL" in this debate due to his presidential ambitions. He was left with no choice politically given how strongly conservatives feel about this issue as he found out on the campaign trail in Iowa, perhaps on average more conservative than the nation as a whole.

In the end it will all come down to how much the WH, the big congressional players in this and the Congress in general want to pass something, and how much time and elbow grease goes into consensus building. Atleast in public they are stating they are motivated enough.
The funny part is that I am sure they will all agree that they should do something. Problem is doing nothing is a 2nd choice for everyone and they all seem to agree with that.....a consensus! It will be a sad indictment on all of them if they can't work out a consensus solution, but this time especially the Dems. will end up with more of the blame since they are in the majority.

All in all, call me an optimist but I think we will see something emerge this summer, how it will look in the end is a matter of speculation. I suspect it will look like something between STRIVE and the WH proposal but perhaps more to the WH proposal side. It will likely emerge with 70-80% of Dem. votes and 30-40% of Republican ones. I am sure the older Dems. like Kennedy realise that even if they sweep the elections again in 2008, the republicans will be a thorn in their side on this issue and obstruct anything from passing, they are even seeing some opposition within their own ranks with the so called blue dog democrats. It would be far better for their constituents if they can get something with a shared responsibility and burden on such a thorny issue and especially with a president in the WH who has no election to ever run in again. They could then try to build on that after 2008.

Good one. A nice overview of how thinks might roll out late spring.
In both the bills, the illegals have been given an oppurtunity to get LPR(Legal permanent recidence) after fulfilling some points or restirctions.
(The chief of Homeland Securty had testified that not all the illegals would like to become permanent recidents, giving an example of what happened in 1986)
A win win for EB, why not, it is very very clear to them after Mr Gates testified.

The problem causing points are...
1) Why should illegal pay so many fees?
2) How can you stop a person from calling his/her family after becomming a citizen of the country?
3) An illegal should not have to go out of the country to get his legal status?
4) Gaurantee that the legal be really allowed to go out of county to visit family and come back?

Let us see how the masala(Masala - is mixture of spices from india) will taste

[rsayed]

Originally Posted by janakp

Strange name 'Pee' Syed Sahib!!

Sorry my mistake - it's "Peer" (meaning guide, I think)

[senthil1]

We cannot compare illegal to legal. Illegal immigrants are not getting gc every year. After 20 years they are getting a chance. That too govt has to do something. It is impractical to deport everyone. That is the reason for USA is trying to resolve the issue.

Legal immigrants are not asking one time deal compared to illegal. Probably if we ask one time 1 millon gc + 140k gc every year that can be easy to achieve. But we are asking unlimited H1b and unlimited gc every year. That is not possible and not practical. Also jobs for legals are just 10 to 20% in numbers compared to illegals(low tech jobs). We also refuse to address some of the issues in H1b. We are not givng solution for slow economy(that time number of H1b and Gc numbers should be reduced based on supply and demand). So there is no surprise there is oppostion for legal immigration

[rsayed]

I think this "White House Proposal" causes more confusion than order to the whole Immigration mess, the USCIS is in.

They accept "family based" is out of wack - also, "employment based" needs to be "reworked".

I agree with most posts on this thread - that there seems to be NO (ZERO) coordination between Dems and Reps, on this critical issue. To me, it seems more like a hurried proposal put forward (since Bush is running out of time).

Net-net: Although efforts from organizations like IV are extremely commendable and will eventuall bear fruits - I think we should just go ahead with whatever career plans we have (in terms of changing jobs, etc.) - if we have "visa time" left. If we are stuck somewhere toward the far end of the 6-yr period, this is really a "no-go" situation.

Seriously thinking about going back home - atleast it's "home"...