Hard Quota Memo on Benders Immigration Bulletin

[Berkeleybee]

Our Hard Quota Memo (in our Resources section) is now posted on the widely read Bender's Immigration Bulletin http://bibdaily.com/index.cgi

Before we created this memo, this fact was not widely known and we are doing our best to get the word out.

best,
Berkeleybee

[virtual55]

Good Job! Next time we find out something like this, I would recommend sending an email about the information we found and request them to publish officially on their websites like immigration.com,immigration-law.com,http://bibdaily.com/index.cgi etc.

[Berkeleybee]

Virtual,

That is exactly what we are doing. The memo didn't just miraculously appear at BIB Daily. I emailed him, others got in touch with Matthew Oh etc.

best,
Berkeleybee

[ramboom1]

I saw the document and also the table at the end of the document. It is hard to understand this table. Can I please suggest that such sensitive numbers be made easy to undertsand? Thanks!

Originally Posted by Berkeleybee

Virtual,

That is exactly what we are doing. The memo didn't just miraculously appear at BIB Daily. I emailed him, others got in touch with Matthew Oh etc.

best,
Berkeleybee

[brb2]

I agree it is hard to comprehend, and I must admit I still do not understand

Originally Posted by ramboom1

I saw the document and also the table at the end of the document. It is hard to understand this table. Can I please suggest that such sensitive numbers be made easy to undertsand? Thanks!

[ramboom1]

Fellow IV members,

How come the "Hard Limit" is not talked about / mentioned in any of the big websites? Shusterman.com / Aila.org et all. Is it possible to get an immigration attorney to explain this crucial issue of "Hard Limit" to IV core team ?

[ragz4u]

Originally Posted by ramboom1

Fellow IV members,

How come the "Hard Limit" is not talked about / mentioned in any of the big websites? Shusterman.com / Aila.org et all. Is it possible to get an immigration attorney to explain this crucial issue of "Hard Limit" to IV core team ?

The research for this was conducted by the content team of IV. And as regards the big websites, Rajeev Khanna, Bender's online Matthew Oh all have provided references to IV's doc. So no need for any attorney to explain to the IV core team about this, since most of them have agreed and appreciated our efforts!

[Ramba]

Originally Posted by ragz4u

The research for this was conducted by the content team of IV. And as regards the big websites, Rajeev Khanna, Bender's online Matthew Oh all have provided references to IV's doc. So no need for any attorney to explain to the IV core team about this, since most of them have agreed and appreciated our efforts!

ragz4u,
I was watching C-span fully. I did not see any amentments to instate Ac21 provision to eliminate hard country quota. Is there any update? Is there any possibilty for amendment from any senatore in floor discussion? Please post the procedings in this issue, as I feel this may be ignored by senaters due to the controversial guest worker program.

By the way is there any differnce between 202a3 and 202a5?

[admin]

Originally Posted by Ramba

ragz4u,
I was watching C-span fully. I did not see any amentments to instate Ac21 provision to eliminate hard country quota. Is there any update? Is there any possibilty for amendment from any senatore in floor discussion? Please post the procedings in this issue, as I feel this may be ignored by senaters due to the controversial guest worker program.

By the way is there any differnce between 202a3 and 202a5?

Ramba,

We're definitely working on this issue and I am sorry that I am not able to go into further details.

202(a)(3) clubs the excess quota for EB and FB together and hence excess EB numbers flow over to FB and vice Versa, which is different from 202(a)(5) which asks for applying the excess quota within a EB cateogry itself.

[Ramba]

Originally Posted by admin

Ramba,

We're definitely working on this issue and I am sorry that I am not able to go into further details.

202(a)(3) clubs the excess quota for EB and FB together and hence excess EB numbers flow over to FB and vice Versa, which is different from 202(a)(5) which asks for applying the excess quota within a EB cateogry itself.

Thanks admin. I understand diffence between a3 and a5 in 202 section. The flow of EB visas to FB (or FB to EB) make the total numarical limit invalid in EB and FB catagries (480K in FB and 140K in EB). If the flow happens accorss the catagory, the law is broken, then there is no meaning of numarical limit in FB or EB visas. Though A3 and A5 has theoriticallyy same meaning(to remove per couthry quota, if excess visas available) DOS have to keep FB and EB seperate track to control the visa numbers in each catagory seperatly. Before 1999, (ie before A5 was introduced thro AC21) all the FB catagories have been backlogged. But EB was current in most catagories. We do not know how DOS handled the situation. we need to understand that in US immigration history, was there any flow of EB numbers to FB numbers when there was a huge demand for EB numbers. It is better to counsult with AILA to understand the historical reasons and how A3 was handled by DOS in previous years ie before 1999.

Why I am writing this is, we may be still safe by the section A3, though section A5 was deleted in both the bills. Unfortunally no attonnies has reported/found this untill IV discussed it.

[Berkeleybee]

Originally Posted by brb2

I agree it is hard to comprehend, and I must admit I still do not understand

Ramboom1, brb2,

Read the first post in this thread http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=346 (EB Provisions in Specter & Frist: The Hidden Harm)

and ask any follow up questions there.