yabadaba
07-11 02:29 PM
Actually - I went to Cambridge High!! I cannot believe you missed that one!! What about Modern High?
cambridge high is a mallu school :D
cambridge high is a mallu school :D
srimani1
10-05 11:04 AM
Applied GC in 2002 July in EB3 category. Still waiting for PD to apply 485. Missed 2007 Aug fiasco. Recemtly got my 11,12 and 13th year H1B extension.
nyte_crawler
04-25 03:03 PM
There are three categories of people,
1) There are people stuck in the labor-queue with early dates. They would want to clear that backlog and they know the PD is so old that they will get their GCs easily.
2) There are people who are waiting to apply or have applied in the 2002-2003 range and they want more visas so that they would get their GCs.
3) There are others who are just filing with dates of 2005 and 2006, who would want to take a different approach as they do not know about their future
I clearly understand as a group, it is impossible to fulfill everyone's expectations. It can only fix the issues that is more relevant and practical at the present moment. But again, I believe by taking "Pay Now and Do what we told, because it is better for all" approach will only prevent people from participating. (Iam not flaming anybody) I believe by writing in one thread about an opinion, is not going to take the group's strategy away from its goal. If that is the case, then there is an underlying problem. Since I dont host this form, I dont expect any rights of free speech. But moderating heavy-handedly will only take away the participation, as I see this happening time and time again. I believe as long as people don't abuse forms, they should be allowed to express their ideas. It's upto the group to decide and take it whenever it is necessary.
But on the contrary, if IV believes that creating threads takes away the server space, IV could remind them of the usage and perhaps close them. But if the approach is once the short term goal of CIR implementation is done there is nothing to worry about, then whatever I said would become invalid.
Peace.
[QUOTE=Eb3_frustrated]Learning01,
There is too much curbing of free speech, you admins are taking a heavy handed approach to discussions. Deleting posts at will, diverting topics at whims and fancies...
Let there be discussins, there is nothing wrong in floating ideas.. allow members to express. Not every idea needs to be implemented.
[QUOTE]
1) There are people stuck in the labor-queue with early dates. They would want to clear that backlog and they know the PD is so old that they will get their GCs easily.
2) There are people who are waiting to apply or have applied in the 2002-2003 range and they want more visas so that they would get their GCs.
3) There are others who are just filing with dates of 2005 and 2006, who would want to take a different approach as they do not know about their future
I clearly understand as a group, it is impossible to fulfill everyone's expectations. It can only fix the issues that is more relevant and practical at the present moment. But again, I believe by taking "Pay Now and Do what we told, because it is better for all" approach will only prevent people from participating. (Iam not flaming anybody) I believe by writing in one thread about an opinion, is not going to take the group's strategy away from its goal. If that is the case, then there is an underlying problem. Since I dont host this form, I dont expect any rights of free speech. But moderating heavy-handedly will only take away the participation, as I see this happening time and time again. I believe as long as people don't abuse forms, they should be allowed to express their ideas. It's upto the group to decide and take it whenever it is necessary.
But on the contrary, if IV believes that creating threads takes away the server space, IV could remind them of the usage and perhaps close them. But if the approach is once the short term goal of CIR implementation is done there is nothing to worry about, then whatever I said would become invalid.
Peace.
[QUOTE=Eb3_frustrated]Learning01,
There is too much curbing of free speech, you admins are taking a heavy handed approach to discussions. Deleting posts at will, diverting topics at whims and fancies...
Let there be discussins, there is nothing wrong in floating ideas.. allow members to express. Not every idea needs to be implemented.
[QUOTE]
pappu
09-12 10:25 AM
/\/\/\/
We need people to run this drive and devote some time to this action item. Please keep this thread alive
We need people to run this drive and devote some time to this action item. Please keep this thread alive
more...
alterego
10-01 09:51 PM
I think there will not much visa numbers unused. If at all, it may be in few hundreds. We are thinking our point of view, even wasting one visa number is ridiculus based on number peoples are waiting. However, the INA states that every year "not more than 140,000 EB visas should be issued".It sets only upper limit not the lower limit. Therefore DOS has be more vigilant in not exceding 140K. By doing so, there may be a few wastage of numbers. If they issue 120K instead of 140K, it is not the violation of law. Insted if they issue 141K it is vialotion of law.
However, if the wastage is more than few hundreds it is definitly not acceptable.
Last year they "wasted" about 10K visa numbers. It is absolutely up to them. However congress has authorized 140k a year and there are huge backlogs for AOS and CP. So when you put that together, leaving about 10K unapproved is clearly not enforcing congressional mandates. The ombudsman blasted them for this in his report, then we had the VB fiasco. None of this sounds like great management of the benefits. There clearly is room for improvement.
We (us and our employers) as the recipients of the benefits are complaining about this, and it is perfectly legitimate.
If any visa numbers are left unused, I definitely think we ought to take up this issue with congressional leaders like Zoe Lofgren. Even just a visa recapture legislation alone would help us tremendously until 2009(about the earliest they might get back to this issue more fully).
However, if the wastage is more than few hundreds it is definitly not acceptable.
Last year they "wasted" about 10K visa numbers. It is absolutely up to them. However congress has authorized 140k a year and there are huge backlogs for AOS and CP. So when you put that together, leaving about 10K unapproved is clearly not enforcing congressional mandates. The ombudsman blasted them for this in his report, then we had the VB fiasco. None of this sounds like great management of the benefits. There clearly is room for improvement.
We (us and our employers) as the recipients of the benefits are complaining about this, and it is perfectly legitimate.
If any visa numbers are left unused, I definitely think we ought to take up this issue with congressional leaders like Zoe Lofgren. Even just a visa recapture legislation alone would help us tremendously until 2009(about the earliest they might get back to this issue more fully).
gcrich
07-18 02:26 PM
Hello
I have made my first contribution of $100
Google:867468246130567
Thanks
Greater Richmond
I have made my first contribution of $100
Google:867468246130567
Thanks
Greater Richmond
more...
ccv
02-12 10:00 AM
Finally, the day dawned for my Labor Certification ! Praise God !
Jimi_Hendrix
11-10 09:53 AM
We now have 5 members in Southern California who have shown interest in participating State Chapter work. I think that is a great start. Thanks for your postings. Once the core team gives us a set of responsibilities we can start rolling.
Thanks.
Thanks.
more...
Green.Tech
05-26 11:21 AM
Where are all the contributors? Wake up guys! EAD is not going to solve GC problems!
ksefiane
09-12 03:10 PM
I have contacted newsrooms in Lynchburg, Roanoke, Charlottesville, Richmond, Danville, Blacksburg, and the New River Valley.
Thanks!
Karima
Thanks!
Karima
more...
virtual55
09-13 04:35 PM
http://www.andhraheadlines.com/World/BrowseArticle.aspx?ArtID=2303
santb1975
05-24 10:37 AM
Good start for a long weekend
Contributed $100 . Good way to long start weekend !
Receipt ID: 2168-6313-9515-3493
Have a nice Week End !
- JimyTomy
______________________
EB3 India
Contributed $100 . Good way to long start weekend !
Receipt ID: 2168-6313-9515-3493
Have a nice Week End !
- JimyTomy
______________________
EB3 India
more...
FrankZulu
08-11 03:43 PM
Pls dont believe SriKondoji. Hez known for spreading false rumours and making lame comments thus misleading ppl. He did the same thing on the July 2 Tracker and was booted out. Hence he was hiding for over a week and now is saying that he was out on a business trip :D. Hez full of lies...Admins, Moderators pls delete this thread as the "Monday" mentioned in the title has gone by and we dont need frauds still re assuring ppl about rumours - Thanx in advance.
SriKondoji & I both being from the NE area we communicated through this thread possibility of car polling for DC and I received a call from him last thursday(Aug 9th) regarding this from some Ohio area code. So buddyinus I can at least assure you he was travelling at that time.
SriKondoji & I both being from the NE area we communicated through this thread possibility of car polling for DC and I received a call from him last thursday(Aug 9th) regarding this from some Ohio area code. So buddyinus I can at least assure you he was travelling at that time.
Green.Tech
06-10 02:12 PM
These visa bulletins, and EAD renewals, and H-1B extensions are not going to cut it for those who want GC's sooner than later. Please help IV to help you.
1) Make those ever important phone calls, and
2) Contribute financially
Don't let this opportunity pass by. Don't let the same visa bulletin get you 3 years down the line. Only we can help push these reforms, no one else is out there to help us!
1) Make those ever important phone calls, and
2) Contribute financially
Don't let this opportunity pass by. Don't let the same visa bulletin get you 3 years down the line. Only we can help push these reforms, no one else is out there to help us!
more...
sri1309
08-14 02:06 PM
Sree,
Headless chicken.. You called me headless chicken .. how dare you.. :)
Just kidding.. You are perfectly right.. Thats the right word and I have said the same even in my first post here. I would request again somebody from IV admin group to take the lead and gather all EB3 to one forum to make a difference. I see atleast 4-5 threads here with same topic.
I would suggest the campaign can have "Visa number recapture, immediate greencard for anyone more than 5 years legally in the US, make all cases current, but apply the quotas at H1 or F1 levels and no limits at GC level. I have many ideas,. but we all must come together and ask just a couple of things or one (recapture) and fight for it. We can do other things too, but a flower campaign will not hurt. IN the worst case it will not make any effect.
We can always send cards which is much easier than flower..
Please come up with something and we can make some progress. Assuming OCt bulletin is coming out on Sep 10th, we have just 26 days to make any difference. That too it must reach them way in advance to effect any change. Lets set a deadline of Aug 25th and do it..
Sri.
Headless chicken.. You called me headless chicken .. how dare you.. :)
Just kidding.. You are perfectly right.. Thats the right word and I have said the same even in my first post here. I would request again somebody from IV admin group to take the lead and gather all EB3 to one forum to make a difference. I see atleast 4-5 threads here with same topic.
I would suggest the campaign can have "Visa number recapture, immediate greencard for anyone more than 5 years legally in the US, make all cases current, but apply the quotas at H1 or F1 levels and no limits at GC level. I have many ideas,. but we all must come together and ask just a couple of things or one (recapture) and fight for it. We can do other things too, but a flower campaign will not hurt. IN the worst case it will not make any effect.
We can always send cards which is much easier than flower..
Please come up with something and we can make some progress. Assuming OCt bulletin is coming out on Sep 10th, we have just 26 days to make any difference. That too it must reach them way in advance to effect any change. Lets set a deadline of Aug 25th and do it..
Sri.
vadicherla
05-28 02:27 PM
i will contribute 50$ now
contributed 350$ so far
contributed 350$ so far
more...
villamonte6100
04-01 02:19 PM
Who brought you to this country ? Do you have any kind of formal education or not ?? You don't understand the concept of Public office... USCIS is a public office they are answerable to public, taxpayers like me and others(I'm not sure about you). If each of us thought that way than we wouldn't be here, we have changed several things in the past and will continue our efforts to do so in the future, and BTW what are you doing here, get the H.O. of here...
Mirage,
I think what Dard-E-Disco is pointing out is that, we are foreigners (Not citizens of the USA), therefore our rights are not the same as a US citizen.
We could create rallies, voice our concerns on this forum, write letters to congressmen and senators, etc etc etc, and that is fine, but we don't have any right to really ask particularly USCIS about their internal workings. I would assume that even US citizens are able to do what you are saying. There are certain levels of confidentiality specially in government that they will never share with anyone.
I think the same is true in your country.
How would you think people in you country or governmnet would react if a foreigner start to question your immigation policy.
Think about that.
Mirage,
I think what Dard-E-Disco is pointing out is that, we are foreigners (Not citizens of the USA), therefore our rights are not the same as a US citizen.
We could create rallies, voice our concerns on this forum, write letters to congressmen and senators, etc etc etc, and that is fine, but we don't have any right to really ask particularly USCIS about their internal workings. I would assume that even US citizens are able to do what you are saying. There are certain levels of confidentiality specially in government that they will never share with anyone.
I think the same is true in your country.
How would you think people in you country or governmnet would react if a foreigner start to question your immigation policy.
Think about that.
srikondoji
08-12 01:43 PM
Diptam,
Can you re-read the post and quote relevant parts of my very first post to prove that i was assertive?
I very clearly said that this info was from customer rep and was true for NSC only.
I have called USCIS twice for specific information because i need t0 travel to europe on a business trip in the months of sept/oct and was interested in getting AP.
Information in this forum or any other forum is for sharing purposes. People should take that and do their own due dilligence.
I have been on yahoo finance for the past 8 years and read many posters recommendation about a particular stock. Do you make investment decisions based on those posts?
You need to update your skills about forums and the validity of its contents.
No one can be assertive in their posts and not even the information originator or its source.
So, please refrain from personal attacks.
I know you and buddyinus are doing just that.
Thanks for others who stepped in and helping me out.
Best regards
sri
Srikondo man,
I dont care your fight with 'buddyinus' or your friendship with 'frankzulu' and whether you were travelling by air/car/ship - I would like to ask you a SIMPLE question.
You started this thread saying that USCIS has a "deadline" for completing stuffs last Monday or last last Friday.... All of us trusted you that time - Could you please give us a responsible answer or status Update.
I hope you will reply this time.
Thanks,
Can you re-read the post and quote relevant parts of my very first post to prove that i was assertive?
I very clearly said that this info was from customer rep and was true for NSC only.
I have called USCIS twice for specific information because i need t0 travel to europe on a business trip in the months of sept/oct and was interested in getting AP.
Information in this forum or any other forum is for sharing purposes. People should take that and do their own due dilligence.
I have been on yahoo finance for the past 8 years and read many posters recommendation about a particular stock. Do you make investment decisions based on those posts?
You need to update your skills about forums and the validity of its contents.
No one can be assertive in their posts and not even the information originator or its source.
So, please refrain from personal attacks.
I know you and buddyinus are doing just that.
Thanks for others who stepped in and helping me out.
Best regards
sri
Srikondo man,
I dont care your fight with 'buddyinus' or your friendship with 'frankzulu' and whether you were travelling by air/car/ship - I would like to ask you a SIMPLE question.
You started this thread saying that USCIS has a "deadline" for completing stuffs last Monday or last last Friday.... All of us trusted you that time - Could you please give us a responsible answer or status Update.
I hope you will reply this time.
Thanks,
kevinkris
06-06 03:03 PM
Goto Top. Guys, can we make this thread STICKY ?
indio0617
03-09 11:22 AM
hi indio
which cap on Nurse are they talking about. Is it the EB cap or H1B cap?
They voted YES to include amendment to eliminate EB visa cap for Nurses (India, PHI)
Will send the Nursing comm into raptures if it finall passes into law. Strong indications that it will make it. Of course that will have major impact on EB3 numbers, I guess
which cap on Nurse are they talking about. Is it the EB cap or H1B cap?
They voted YES to include amendment to eliminate EB visa cap for Nurses (India, PHI)
Will send the Nursing comm into raptures if it finall passes into law. Strong indications that it will make it. Of course that will have major impact on EB3 numbers, I guess
baburob2
03-15 06:25 PM
Overall no big progress w.r.t our title's though Brownback's comment on immigration numbers is good.
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
No comments:
Post a Comment