Immigration Voice - Forums
Register Get Involved Contact Lawmakers Advocacy Discussion Image Image Image Image

Go Back   Immigration Voice > Immigration Voice Issues and Congressional updates > IV Agenda and Legislative Updates
Click to log in with Facebook
IV Agenda and Legislative Updates Immigration Voice's Agenda and Legislative Updates

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 02-27-2006, 08:48 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Jan-02
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
01/01/2000
Chargeability
:
Brazil
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
01/01/2000
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 580
Ramba has a brilliant future Ramba has a brilliant future Ramba has a brilliant future Ramba has a brilliant future Ramba has a brilliant future Ramba has a brilliant future Ramba has a brilliant future Ramba has a brilliant future Ramba has a brilliant future Ramba has a brilliant future Ramba has a brilliant future
Default Fax is not effective and our goal is not clear.

I just sent the fax to senators of my state for amendment to Sen. Specter markup. The current format is not effective.

My main concern is why our people are worrying about filing AOS when visa number unavailable? Man, this should not be our concern at all. Our main concern should be reinstating the AC21 provision that allow the oversubscribed countries to use excess visas in each EB category.

If the current form of specter bill passes, there is no benefit to any of us. If EB visa increased to 290K, excluding dependents from counting from FY 2001, recapturing unused visa from 2001 to 2005, and excluding EB1 (OR+EA) and EB2 (MS+3) from count, that drastically increase the visa numbers. The increase is unimaginable, and I feel that it will be about 4 to 5 times than current 140K numbers. If all the listed provisions appears in the final bill, the visa number will always be “current” for all countries for many years, provided AC21 (elimination of per country limit if demand is less than supply) reinstated. If this happens, no one needs to worry about filing AOS when visa number unavailable. That situation never arises.

If current form of Specter bill passes, all the new numbers created thro above listed provisions, will not give any benefit to India/China. DOS simply say per country limit is 10% only no matter what. Remember that, 10% is total of FB+EB numbers. (480000+290000). India and China FB numbers are also heavily backlogged. Therefore our main concern is to reinstate AC21 provision not filing AOS, and keep pressure to keep the listed provisions (EB visa increased to 290K, excluding dependents from counting from FY 2001, recapturing unused visa from 2001 to 2005, and excluding EB1 (OR+EA) and EB2 (MS+3)) in the final bill.

Please modify the format.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #2 (permalink)  
Old 02-27-2006, 09:11 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Sep-04
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
09/01/2005
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
07/24/2007
Compare
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,503
logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute
Default Ramba

Thanks for taking the interest and posting the comment.

What you mean is change the content of the webfax,not the format.

Anyways, the current draft of Specter bill would lead to numbers flowing downward(unused numbers due to 7% or 10% per country limit). When they flow downwards from EB2, EB3 and EB4, they go to EB5 where there is no mention of per country limit(by omission).

You know what this means? After all the gains, the country limit on India and China will cause the overflow of all visa numbers to EB5(Unskilled labor, gardeners, cooks, maids) WHERE THERE IS NOT COUNTRY LIMIT and unlimited demand. And over there, in absence of no country limit, immigrants from Mexico will consume all EB5 unskilled numbers and there wont be anything like "UNUSED" numbers.(read the thread posted by STUCKLABOR for that analysis and legalese. : http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=241 (Specter's markup victimizes EB1-3, benefits EB5 unskilled workers) )

Coming back to proposals of Specter, the idea that there is so much relief that we dont need to worry about this or that...here is the thing...Current markup is a proposal. Not even a final version of Judiciary committee markup. From there you lose some things when it goes to the full floor of senate and then A LOT OF THINGS when the hawks from the HOUSE of REPS like Tancredos and Smiths slither their tentacles on the Senate version in the CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. That's the reason we dont want to lose one thing even if we are gaining 10 things because those 10 things might be reduced to 2 by the time its negotiated in the conference committee between the house and the senate.

However, if you want to provide more input on this issue, you are most welcome to email Sandeep who is leading the content-prep team that writes these webfaxes and letters. His email is sandeep@immigrationvoice.org

Thanks for taking interesting and sharing your view.

--logiclife.

Last edited by logiclife; 02-27-2006 at 09:14 PM.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #3 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2006, 05:15 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Category
:
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 151
wellwishergc is on a distinguished road
Default

Logiclife,

That makes perfect sense.

My question is - Is it possible that all clauses related to illegal immigration will be striked off, while legal will go through? To my understanding, the main objective of this bill is to solve the issue of illegal immigration. Legal immigration is just an additional section.. My fear again is - will the whole bill be discarded just because of the contentious illegal immigration aspects in the bill?.. Is there a way to pass the legal immigration relief measures without a bill?.. something like an amendment to the existing law?

Quote:
Originally Posted by logiclife
Thanks for taking the interest and posting the comment.

What you mean is change the content of the webfax,not the format.

Anyways, the current draft of Specter bill would lead to numbers flowing downward(unused numbers due to 7% or 10% per country limit). When they flow downwards from EB2, EB3 and EB4, they go to EB5 where there is no mention of per country limit(by omission).

You know what this means? After all the gains, the country limit on India and China will cause the overflow of all visa numbers to EB5(Unskilled labor, gardeners, cooks, maids) WHERE THERE IS NOT COUNTRY LIMIT and unlimited demand. And over there, in absence of no country limit, immigrants from Mexico will consume all EB5 unskilled numbers and there wont be anything like "UNUSED" numbers.(read the thread posted by STUCKLABOR for that analysis and legalese. : http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=241 (Specter's markup victimizes EB1-3, benefits EB5 unskilled workers) )

Coming back to proposals of Specter, the idea that there is so much relief that we dont need to worry about this or that...here is the thing...Current markup is a proposal. Not even a final version of Judiciary committee markup. From there you lose some things when it goes to the full floor of senate and then A LOT OF THINGS when the hawks from the HOUSE of REPS like Tancredos and Smiths slither their tentacles on the Senate version in the CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. That's the reason we dont want to lose one thing even if we are gaining 10 things because those 10 things might be reduced to 2 by the time its negotiated in the conference committee between the house and the senate.

However, if you want to provide more input on this issue, you are most welcome to email Sandeep who is leading the content-prep team that writes these webfaxes and letters. His email is sandeep@immigrationvoice.org

Thanks for taking interesting and sharing your view.

--logiclife.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
485-All clear and In-Line to be assigned to an IO damialok Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins 21 05-09-2008 01:31 PM
Now that we are clear abt H1-B and AP travel there arises one discussion jayZinDC Work/Travel options after 485 : H1 Versus EAD/AP 19 01-23-2008 05:41 PM
Goal: Bring atleast one new member kumar26fl IV Agenda and Legislative Updates 13 09-23-2006 08:48 PM
Listen Clear or Pay sukant71 Backlog Processing Center 4 08-30-2006 01:37 PM
To establish a clear and straightforward cause tempworker_tn_1 IV Agenda and Legislative Updates 19 02-19-2006 12:00 PM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c)ImmigrationVoice.org