PDA

View Full Version : President Obama Sends Startup America Legislative Agenda to Congress


StarSun
01-31-2012, 12:34 PM
On One-Year Anniversary of Startup America Initiative President Obama Sends Startup America Legislative Agenda to Congress

Administration Takes Immediate Steps to Accelerate Startup and Small Business Growth

Today, on the one-year anniversary of both the White House Startup America Initiative and the private-sector Startup America Partnership, President Obama sent a Startup America Legislative Agenda to Congress which will expand tax relief and unlock capital for startups and small businesses that are creating jobs. Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will take steps to attract and retain foreign-born entrepreneurs and highly-skilled immigrants so they can start up the next generation of small businesses and great American companies. The Administration also unveiled several new agency actions to accelerate the growth of young, job-creating companies, at the same time that new entrepreneur-led regional coalitions are launching throughout the nation.

“One year ago today, I called for an all hands on deck effort to ensure that America remains the best place on Earth to turn a great idea into a successful business. The private sector responded, with the Startup America Partnership launching new entrepreneurial networks all across the country. Today, we’re taking new steps that build on that progress, and I urge Congress to send me a common-sense bipartisan bill that does even more to expand access to capital and cut taxes for America’s entrepreneurs and small businesses,” said President Obama.

In last week’s State of the Union, the President said that “Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses. So let’s pass an agenda that helps them succeed. Both parties agree on these ideas. So put them in a bill, and get it on my desk this year.” Building on this statement and proposals put forward in the Jobs Act in September, today the President delivered an agenda that outlines bipartisan ideas to help startups and small businesses succeed.

The Startup America Legislative Agenda contains four tax breaks for small businesses and four proposals that will help expand access to capital and a provision to address immigrant visa backlogs and a provision to address immigrant visa backlogs:

· Cutting taxes for small businesses: The President is proposing to build on the 17 small business tax cuts he has already signed into law with four new tax cuts to encourage growth and investment:

o Expand and Make Permanent Zero Capital Gains on Small Business Investments: The President is proposing to make permanent a tax cut he put forward and signed into law in 2010 that eliminates taxes on capital gains in key investments in small businesses.

o Reward Job Creation with a New Jobs and Wages Tax Credit: The President is proposing a new tax credit for 2012 that would provide a 10 percent income tax credit on new payroll for small businesses—through either hiring or increased wages—added in 2012.

o Double Deductions for Startup Expenses: The President is proposing to permanently double the amount of start-up expenses entrepreneurs can deduct from their taxes from $5,000 to $10,000.

o Extend 100 Percent Depreciation: The President is proposing to extend 100-percent first-year depreciation for one year, effective for qualified property acquired and placed in service before January 1, 2013.


· Unlocking capital access for growing companies: The President is putting forward responsible measures that will help growing businesses access financing consistent with investor protections, including:

o Expand Mini-Offering Limits: The President is calling to raise the offering limit under Regulation A from $5 million to $50 million, coupled with strong investor protections.

o Crowdfunding: The President is calling for a national framework that allows entrepreneurs and small businesses to raise capital through “crowdfunding.”

o Creating an “IPO on-ramp”: The President is calling for changes in how our current securities laws and regulations are phased in for smaller, young companies in their first years after going public in an initial public offering (IPO).


o Expand the Small Business Investment Company Program: The President is calling to increase the SBIC program to allow for up to $4 billion in annual support.


· Relieving the backlog of immigrant visas: As put forward in his Blueprint for Building a 21st Century Immigration System, the President is proposing to:


· Eliminate Country-Specific Caps: The President is calling for a balanced approach to eliminate country-specific caps for certain immigrant visa categories to attract more high skilled foreign workers, including entrepreneurs.

In response to the President’s call for action on these issues last September, there has been growing bipartisan support for components of the President’s agenda, and the Administration looks forward to working with Congress to pass legislation without delay. To view details of the Startup America Legislative Agenda, click HERE.

One year ago, the President called for an all-hands-on-deck effort to promote the success of entrepreneurs across the country. As a private-sector response, Steve Case (AOL co-founder and member of the President’s Jobs Council) and the Kauffman Foundation formed the Startup America Partnership, a nonprofit alliance of entrepreneurs, major corporations, and service providers that has mobilized over $1 billion in business resources to serve as many as 100,000 startups over the next three years. Today the Partnership is launching nine new entrepreneur-led regional networks across the country in the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Vermont, while previously launched Startup Regions are celebrating in Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Tennessee.

Today the Administration also announced a series of new steps to expand access to capital, cut red tape, and accelerate innovation, building on a year of prior actionsthrough the White House Startup America Initiative. DHS announced several measures they will implement to streamline existing pathways for immigrant entrepreneurs to enter and create businesses in the U.S., retain more foreign-born science and technology graduates from U.S. universities, facilitate immigration by top researchers, and help U.S. startups and other companies compete for global talent. To view the details of DHS’ administrative reforms announced today, click HERE. The State Department also plans to announce a regulatory change which will enable employees who are intercompany transferees to take advantage of longer visas from the outset of their transfer to the United States. To view the details of this pending regulatory change, click HERE.

Additional Administration commitments to promote startups and small businesses announced today include:

· New Challenges Fueling Regional Innovation: The Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration (EDA) is launching the third round of the i6 Challenge, which funds regional collaborations to bring innovative, ground-breaking ideas from the lab to the marketplace, creating new startups and jobs across the country. Commerce is also launching a new initiative to connect entrepreneurs with the resources made available through the Startup America Partnership and its partners.

· New Round of America’s Next Top Energy Innovator: The Department of Energy is kicking off a second year of America’s Next Top Energy Innovator, a program that dramatically reduces the cost and red tape facing startup companies that license federal energy technology. Up to 15,000 patents held by our national laboratories will be available for startups to license at a steep discount, representing a savings of $10,000 to $50,000.

· Building a Regional Mentor Network: The U.S. Small Business Administration will launch a series of regional events at accelerators and universities to build a network connecting participants in the high-growth entrepreneurial sector, with the goal of scaling new and growing existing mentoring programs for entrepreneurs.

· National Education Startup Challenge: The Department of Education is opening the doors of the National Education Startup Challenge, inviting students from 6thgrade up to college age to develop an innovative solution to an education problem and design a blueprint for a new company or non-profit organization to deliver that solution. Winning students will be celebrated by senior White House and Department of Education officials and may qualify for additional recognition opportunities.

· Startup America Policy Challenge: In December 2011, the White House launched the Startup America Policy Challenge, asking entrepreneurs and the American public how to knock down barriers to innovation in healthcare IT, clean energy, and learning technologies. In response, today the Arizona State University (ASU) School of Public Affairs is leading a network of schools, scholars, and problem-solvers from across the country in a contest to generate the best solutions. Finalists of the contest will be invited to Washington, DC to present their ideas to a panel of expert judges from business and academia, as well as meet with principals from the relevant agency (Dept. of Health and Human Services, Dept. of Education, or Dept. of Energy) to discuss their proposals.

To view full details of the White House Startup America Initiative, including a progress report on key executive actions, click HERE.

neelu8
01-31-2012, 12:38 PM
Country limit removal and exact language of HR 3012 are part of this bill proposed by the White House. This is a great positive development for our bill.

thomachan72
01-31-2012, 12:46 PM
Great but history tells that anything the president sends out (even if it clearly is good) will be opposed by the republicans. However, this also shows that the WH (and likely the democrats in senate) will support our cause even as a separate bill.
Great news and Great work IV!!!!

thomachan72
01-31-2012, 12:57 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/startup_america_legislative_agenda.pdf
Just read it on the official site. This is wonderful news IV. Hey if IVs work had anything to do with this please openly atleast make a claim on this forum rather than just posting as a news item, so that the members are aware of it. Nobody wants to know how this happened or what role IV had but we certainly need to know if IVs actions had a strong role in this being so prominently reflected in this WH initiative. Thanks guys!!

neelu8
01-31-2012, 01:02 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/startup_america_legislative_agenda.pdf
Just read it on the official site. This is wonderful news IV. Hey if IVs work had anything to do with this please openly atleast make a claim on this forum rather than just posting as a news item, so that the members are aware of it. Nobody wants to know how this happened or what role IV had but we certainly need to know if IVs actions had a strong role in this being so prominently reflected in this WH initiative. Thanks guys!!

Yes, IV has actively worked on getting WH support.

sdeshpan
01-31-2012, 01:04 PM
So what does it mean that president is "sending legislative agenda to congress"? Does this mean he expects some Senators to work on this and convert it into a bill that can then be voted upon? This in itself is not a bill...so what would the next steps be?

neelu8
01-31-2012, 01:05 PM
Great but history tells that anything the president sends out (even if it clearly is good) will be opposed by the republicans. However, this also shows that the WH (and likely the democrats in senate) will support our cause even as a separate bill.
Great news and Great work IV!!!!

HR3012 is a Republican bill with bipartisan cosponshorship. It has broad support on both sides of the aisle in the Senate (except for one Senator) and the WH openly advocating it, along with all the other bills it is a part of (Agree Act which is Republican, Schumer's bill which is Democratic, etc ) goes to further show the overwhelming support it has.

sdeshpan
01-31-2012, 01:13 PM
HR3012 is a Republican bill with bipartisan cosponshorship. It has broad support on both sides of the aisle in the Senate (except for one Senator) and the WH openly advocating it, along with all the other bills it is a part of (Agree Act which is Republican, Schumer's bill which is Democratic, etc ) goes to further show the overwhelming support it has.
So it's not broad enough to get 60 votes and cloture to defend against that one senator? :)

Amman
01-31-2012, 01:16 PM
President Obama today urged lawmakers to act quickly on bipartisan legislation to expand tax cuts for small businesses and unlock capital for startup companies.

“My expectation and hope is that they will get a bill together quickly, that they will pass it and get it on my desk. I will sign it right away. And I would like to see that bill signed this year,” the president told reporters at the start of a Cabinet meeting at the White House.

Amman
01-31-2012, 01:17 PM
President Obama today urged lawmakers to act quickly on bipartisan legislation to expand tax cuts for small businesses and unlock capital for startup companies.

“My expectation and hope is that they will get a bill together quickly, that they will pass it and get it on my desk. I will sign it right away. And I would like to see that bill signed this year,” the president told reporters at the start of a Cabinet meeting at the White House.
so "signed this year,” means no immediate action is expected....

starscream
01-31-2012, 01:20 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/startup_america_legislative_agenda.pdf

Page 6
------------
The President is committed to fixing our broken immigration system through comprehensive immigration reform. This includes creating a legal immigration system that meets our diverse economic needs and honors our rich traditions as a nation of immigrants that attracts entrepreneurial immigrants and strengthens the American workforce. In an effort to reduce backlogs in the legal immigration system, the President is calling to:

Eliminate the per-country caps on employment-based immigrant visas ("green cards") Raise the caps on family-based green cards from 7 percent to 15 percent.

These small but meaningful reforms represent a balanced approach to addressing some of the long-standing problems with our broken immigrant visa system. These measures would not increase the total number of available immigrant visas but it would help address some of the longest backlogs that occur because of annual per country caps.

Exact HR 3012 summary language

neelu8
01-31-2012, 01:20 PM
So it's not broad enough to get 60 votes and cloture to defend against that one senator? :)

Is that what you read from broad and overwhelming? :)

sdeshpan
01-31-2012, 01:23 PM
Is that what you read from broad and overwhelming? :)
Nah I know there is overwhelming support, but just wondering why it is still required to negotiate with that one, unreasonable guy. I hope Mr. Majority Leader can help us by bringing it to vote, and then the bipartisan support can help it breeze through!

Nevertheless, it would be very interesting to see what happens to this agenda put forth by the President.

starscream
01-31-2012, 01:24 PM
If bill refers to the whole agenda tax cuts etc etc yes than it might be too much but then for the RELIEVING THE BACKLOG OF IMMIGRANT VISAS part (page 6 of the doc in my prevu=ious post) - the bill has already gotten together and is already there waiting Senate floor action



so "signed this year,” means no immediate action is expected....

thomachan72
01-31-2012, 01:25 PM
What I read from this new information;
1) 3012 clearly has a "rather huge" support (republic/democrat/WH)
2) We need not wait for this presidents initiative. This will just serve to increase the support for 3012 which could be acted upon independent of this WH initiative. (so the 1 year wait suggested by starscream might not hold true)
3) This support will be useful to push through a cloture vote on 3012?
Overall I feel more positive. Ofcourse there are questions but still much lesser now??

Amman
01-31-2012, 01:27 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/startup_america_legislative_agenda.pdf

Page 6
------------
The President is committed to fixing our broken immigration system through comprehensive immigration reform. This includes creating a legal immigration system that meets our diverse economic needs and honors our rich traditions as a nation of immigrants that attracts entrepreneurial immigrants and strengthens the American workforce. In an effort to reduce backlogs in the legal immigration system, the President is calling to:

Eliminate the per-country caps on employment-based immigrant visas ("green cards") Raise the caps on family-based green cards from 7 percent to 15 percent.

These small but meaningful reforms represent a balanced approach to addressing some of the long-standing problems with our broken immigrant visa system. These measures would not increase the total number of available immigrant visas but it would help address some of the longest backlogs that occur because of annual per country caps.

Exact HR 3012 summary language
I don't think anyone is arguing against "Exact HR 3012 summary language" but question remains where is HR-3012 itself stands ? Since this WH initiative and Irish E-3 Visa Bills are shaping up, there is a big question mark against standalone HR 3012.

gumpena
01-31-2012, 01:31 PM
At least this make it clear, if the cloture motion is brought in the Senate and is successful, the President will not reject it and will sign H.R.3012.

starscream
01-31-2012, 01:46 PM
Thomas dude - i did not suggest the 1 year wait that was another - I was saying just the opposite - Bill is already there (hr 3012) for the reduce gc backlogs part of his agenda (on page 6 of white house doc in my previous post...)

like you i am feeling +ve

What I read from this new information;
1) 3012 clearly has a "rather huge" support (republic/democrat/WH)
2) We need not wait for this presidents initiative. This will just serve to increase the support for 3012 which could be acted upon independent of this WH initiative. (so the 1 year wait suggested by starscream might not hold true)
3) This support will be useful to push through a cloture vote on 3012?
Overall I feel more positive. Ofcourse there are questions but still much lesser now??

starscream
01-31-2012, 01:50 PM
Irish E-3 Visa Bills are shaping up?? - Whoever is shaping up these bills (including "stay tuned" attorney Matthe Oh )might want to check with ranking member from Iowa of Senate Jud. Commitee

I don't think anyone is arguing against "Exact HR 3012 summary language" but question remains where is HR-3012 itself stands ? Since this WH initiative and Irish E-3 Visa Bills are shaping up, there is a big question mark against standalone HR 3012.

thomachan72
01-31-2012, 01:51 PM
looks like Ohio law friend either has work to do today? or has not yet heard about this initiative? He is still on the top 10 h1b users and the irish agenda:D:D expecting him to jump onto this one soon as part of the "breaking news". Have to admit though, he sometimes brings up some interesting news bites by scrounging the internet for such news items:D:D.

Amman
01-31-2012, 02:07 PM
I’m not a big fan of Oh but don't understand what's the big deal of him copying and pasting news ? we all do. I see same thing here too including this thread. i don't see him doing/taking against hr-3012 ? did he ? question was, since WH released this new bill initiative that includes hr-3012 provisions, was wondering what would be the possibility of Senator Reid considering standalone 3012 vs. Presidents interest ?

psaxena
01-31-2012, 02:13 PM
I don't want to sound negative, but everytime Obama says something , republicans do the opposite. Now I am afraid that the WH's support to HR 3012 may not turn away the republicans who already had been supporting, because with the politics going on at Capitol Hill is beyond any logical consideration.
I was doing some research and figured the Sen Grassly's hold is not for making anything better for the Americans, but he is the puppet of NumberUSA. The hold to bill was donem by NumberUSA, don't know how much or what Grassly got for it , but that seems the primary reason for the hold.

new_horizon
01-31-2012, 02:34 PM
I somehow think this will not help us. The WH saw this bill as having a broad bipartisan support, and so they probably threw their support behind it to try and claim credit. HR 3012 will pass with or without WH, except for the hold from Sen G. The WH supporting it is not going to sway Sen G to remove the hold.

the solution is for the sen majority leader to bring it to vote now. I think our focus should be on sen maj leader to convince him.

s416504
01-31-2012, 02:39 PM
Oh Law is awake but I see "need to click Ctrl-F5 to refresh his page".
Interestingly (many times) he promptly updates/brings new piece of information.

looks like Ohio law friend either has work to do today? or has not yet heard about this initiative? He is still on the top 10 h1b users and the irish agenda:D:D expecting him to jump onto this one soon as part of the "breaking news". Have to admit though, he sometimes brings up some interesting news bites by scrounging the internet for such news items:D:D.

starscream
01-31-2012, 02:44 PM
Pres has never said he wants ALL thes provsions in 1 bill only then he will sign it :)

Regarding OH:
Oh can cut and paste whatever he chooses :) - but if you have been following HR 3012 progress right since October when it was introduced in house at every step Oh has doubted about the vialbility of the bills progess - first he was wondering if bill has republican support in house comittee the after it passed he was wondering whether it wil be take up at all / whether it has democratic support in house - then after it passed the house he was wondering whether it will pass Senate committee (quote from his website "Sen. G stands tall") after it skipped committee just 2 words about it and now he is wondering whether it will put to cloture - he seems to be mocking the bill's progress .....

He very well knows that Irish bill will just fester at the commitee level (it proposes inc in visas it wil be blocked as well as something as simple as Hr 3012 has been blocked ), he also knows that if theoretically it were to pass commitee with HR 3012 provision and then pass Senate then it will go to house - what are its chances there ??? will it get the same support??? -

Now I bet once he reads of the WH agenda doc - he will post it and try to tie up things like Irish / election year yada yada ...by saying things like - "WH is supporting bills provisions wonder if Schumer will incluide Irish provisions remains to be seen" or "wonder will republicans support this as WH is proposing due to election year I wonder......"

Anyways we both want this passed :)....back to work from lunch break

I’m not a big fan of Oh but don't understand what's the big deal of him copying and pasting news ? we all do. I see same thing here too including this thread. i don't see him doing/taking against hr-3012 ? did he ? question was, since WH released this new bill initiative that includes hr-3012 provisions, was wondering what would be the possibility of Senator Reid considering standalone 3012 vs. Presidents interest ?

DallasBlue
01-31-2012, 03:32 PM
- House passed the bill HR3012 with bipartisan support
- White house supports the bill HR3012
- Presidents job council wants HR3012 to be passed
President’s Jobs Council to President Obama: Adopt GOP Bills, Approach to Job Creation | Speaker of the House John Boehner | speaker.gov (http://www.speaker.gov/blog/Default.aspx?postid=275098)

--looks like senate SBC too wants to see this thru
U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship (http://sbc.senate.gov/)

Press Releases - News - U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship (http://www.sbc.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=eeee089b-16fa-4c05-a176-4a81ef7c93f4)

-- looks like Senate Minority leader Mitch Mcconnell is for it.
Economic Growth - Issues - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=EconomicGrowth&ContentRecord_id=52844f70-711f-4231-b0a5-4e5811151fcb&ContentType_id=f4c2c223-b5bb-41cf-9cab-3f5928c0c550&c19bc7a5-2bb9-4a73-b2ab-3c1b5191a72b&Group_id=23264052-7441-4e76-bb84-027d0b12721e)



alas so close yet soo far with a senate hold ? i.e democracy ;-)

thomachan72
01-31-2012, 03:54 PM
I’m not a big fan of Oh but don't understand what's the big deal of him copying and pasting news ? we all do. I see same thing here too including this thread. i don't see him doing/taking against hr-3012 ? did he ? question was, since WH released this new bill initiative that includes hr-3012 provisions, was wondering what would be the possibility of Senator Reid considering standalone 3012 vs. Presidents interest ?
Who cares what he posts amman. Its just that when Grass put the hold he was quick to say "Not so fast". His not so neutral stand on 3012 was quite evident. Again honestly I dont give a S*** what he says. Just happy today to see that our voice has been heard by the WH itself. I personally cannot see anything negative about that. Remember when the president talks with his folks in the senate about his agenda and the need to push it through our item is one of the "most prominent" on his "entire list". In other words the President himself is seeing political mileage in getting this done. Isn't that good enough. Well certainly for me friend:D:D

gk_2000
01-31-2012, 03:56 PM
For believers -- you know who exactly you must remember when doing "manyo ho raina kyo"!
For the uninitiated, you can chant this at any and all times except 12:00 to 3:00 and keeping in mind the person who is being an obstacle.. :)

dts
01-31-2012, 04:38 PM
I somehow think this will not help us. The WH saw this bill as having a broad bipartisan support, and so they probably threw their support behind it to try and claim credit. HR 3012 will pass with or without WH, except for the hold from Sen G. The WH supporting it is not going to sway Sen G to remove the hold.

the solution is for the sen majority leader to bring it to vote now. I think our focus should be on sen maj leader to convince him.


Yes. I do not wish HR3012 gets highlighted too much. It has already required support.
Remember, the next day bill passed in house, Chuck Scummer made statement that he wants to pass this in Senate soon and immediately people jumped in to oppose it.
Although it is good to read WH story today, I feel IV should think on agenad to push this on Senate floor. AS new_horizon told, convince Senate Majority leader for motion to proceed or motion to cloture.

Amman
01-31-2012, 04:44 PM
Who cares what he posts amman. Its just that when Grass put the hold he was quick to say "Not so fast". His not so neutral stand on 3012 was quite evident. Again honestly I dont give a S*** what he says. Just happy today to see that our voice has been heard by the WH itself. I personally cannot see anything negative about that. Remember when the president talks with his folks in the senate about his agenda and the need to push it through our item is one of the "most prominent" on his "entire list". In other words the President himself is seeing political mileage in getting this done. Isn't that good enough. Well certainly for me friend:D:D
Thomachan,
that's my whole point too. Who gives rats a*** about what he writes. If you happened to read his message, read it forget about it. After all he greps the info from elsewhere….why we need to discuss that here, giving him free publicity. I'm absolutely thrilled that WH talks directly about our immediate issue, but i was wondering and worry that this new bill WH proposes may delay the HR-3012. may be my worry is baseless...but given the Capital hill dramas nothing can be ruled out….

gumpena
01-31-2012, 06:02 PM
There is nothing in this regarding E-3 Visas for Irish which we are reading a lot about in the other site. I am not sure how this is going to play..

gauravster
02-01-2012, 11:01 AM
Merging this provision with a broader bill actually sounds pretty bad to me. As usual it seems like playing politics again. This bill has broad support so merge it with other things, so that the other things which may not otherwise pass get passed in order to get this provision passed.

This actually sounds more like the bill will be getting delayed in order to pass it along with other provisions.

neelu8
02-01-2012, 11:21 AM
Folks, our bill is not being merged with any of these. These are the President's broad proposals and go to show his support for it and are meant for urging the Senate (and House) leadership to act on them. Many things in the legislative process are only symbolic but are very important nevertheless. This is a great positive step in the process of getting H.R. 3012 passed.
As always be patient, and keep on with the action items. The wheels are in motion and in due course and time we should see this through. Thanks to each and everyone for their support. We need everyone's help to get it across the finish line!

starscream
02-01-2012, 11:50 AM
The President has never said send all these proposal in 1 bill and only then I Will sign the bill. WH has published a agenda covering different areas (taxation, education, immigration etc) - Some require legislative efforts (Congress through various bills ) some required govt agency doing something (eg. DHS).

And oh gosh...Irish E3 does not seem to be on WH agenda:)

gc_check
02-01-2012, 12:07 PM
I personally think, long gone are the days getting excited for proposals, amendments related to EB Immigration made by WH, Senators, Congressmen, etc...

IV members now seems to understand how the US Legislative process works and know it is not a deal, until the President signs the Bill and it is a painful and frustrating process. Sometime, people who started to worked end up in opposite sides. All you need to do is keep fighting. Eventually we will succeed.

Nothing wrong in being positive. It helps. I am some how feeling positive with the recent developments this time and looks like we might see some +ve results.

Edison99
02-01-2012, 12:20 PM
ya, I felt same way as well...

I personally think, long gone are the days getting excited for proposals, amendments related to EB Immigration made by WH, Senators, Congressmen, etc...

IV members now seems to understand how the US Legislative process works and know it is not a deal, until the President signs the Bill and it is a painful and frustrating process. Sometime, people who started to worked end up in opposite sides. All you need to do is keep fighting. Eventually we will succeed.

Nothing wrong in being positive. It helps. I am some how feeling positive with the recent developments this time and looks like we might see some +ve results.

anilnag
02-01-2012, 03:43 PM
I think first of all, senate legislative process need reform. Under current scenaro Immigration reform will be easier to tackle if WH pursued this. Hard to believe one senator can held hostage a bill that has this widespread support.

praskar
02-01-2012, 04:15 PM
I personally think, long gone are the days getting excited for proposals, amendments related to EB Immigration made by WH, Senators, Congressmen, etc...

IV members now seems to understand how the US Legislative process works and know it is not a deal, until the President signs the Bill and it is a painful and frustrating process. Sometime, people who started to worked end up in opposite sides. All you need to do is keep fighting. Eventually we will succeed.

Nothing wrong in being positive. It helps. I am some how feeling positive with the recent developments this time and looks like we might see some +ve results.

Very well said. I'll get excited after something is passed.

GCTorture
02-01-2012, 05:07 PM
I think first of all, senate legislative process need reform. Under current scenaro Immigration reform will be easier to tackle if WH pursued this. Hard to believe one senator can held hostage a bill that has this widespread support.

Exactly. Well said. senate legislative process itself need reform. and this is called democracy dude!!!

shining
02-01-2012, 07:22 PM
Refer to the read from ILW.COM - immigration news:Why We Can’t Wait: How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs with the Stroke of A Pen (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0201-endelman.shtm)

Why We Can’t Wait: How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs with the Stroke of A Pen

Cheers
Shining

DallasBlue
02-10-2012, 02:38 PM
can we everyone send this to the white advisor? Advise the Advisor | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/advise)

Advise the Advisor | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/advise)


How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs with the Stroke of A Pen

ilw.com/articles/2012,0201-endelman.shtm


ILW.COM - immigration news:Why We Can’t Wait: How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs with the Stroke of A Pen (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0201-endelman.shtm)


At this point, if one files a labor certification in 2011 under the employment-based third preference for India, it will take 70 years before the green card materializes![3] The adult son or daughter who was born in Mexico of a US citizen does much better relatively under the family-based first preference, but the wait is still close to 20 years! Such a hopeless wait is simply untenable for an employer who has unsuccessfully tested the US labor market for much needed skills in short supply. It is similarly inhumane for a parent to yearn for so long to reunite with her son. Mind you, we are talking here about legal immigration, and those who rail against unauthorized immigrants accuse them for not getting into the line. But when the avenues for legal immigration are few and the lines endless, the system has broken and we are dealing with a situation, in the face of Congressional paralysis, that is going from bad to abysmal. We acknowledge that the House recently passed H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act on September 22, 2011 by a landslide vote of 389-15, which if passed, will eliminate the employment-based per country limits and increase the family-based per country cap from 7% to 15%. , H.R 3012,on the other hand, will not increase the overall number of immigrant visas. While it may reduce the waiting times for China and India in the employment-based preferences, nationals of all other countries may experience backlogs, especially in the employment-based second preference. Thus, the problems of backlogs will still remain. While we acknowledge that only Congress can create more avenues for legal immigration, is there a legal basis for an interpretation that would dramatically reduce, or even eliminate, such a long wait under the EB and FB preferences? We think there is.

We know of no explicit authorization for derivative family members to be counted under either the Employment Based or Family Based preference in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Let us examine what INA § 203(d) says:


A spouse of child defined in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 1101(b) of this title shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.
There is nothing here that explicitly authorizes or mandates the counting of family members under the preference quotas. While a derivative is “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration” as the principal alien, nothing requires that family members also be given their own numbers. Suppose, for example, that there is only one visa number left in a fiscal year for the EB-2 category and that the last principal beneficiary who gets this number has a spouse and 6 children. What happens to them? Ought they not be accorded “the same status and the same order of consideration?” Should only the principal become an LPR while everyone else waits till next year? What if visa retrogression sets in and the family has to wait, maybe for years? This does not make sense. Is there not sufficient ambiguity in INA § 203(d) to argue that family members should not be counted against the cap? We do not contend that they should be completely exempted from being counted. As stated in INA 203 § (d), family members should be given the “same status and the same order of consideration” as the principal. Hence, if there is no visa number for the principal, the rest of the family does not get in. If, on the other hand, there is a single remaining visa number for the principal, the family members, however many there are, ought to be “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration as the principal.”

DallasBlue
02-10-2012, 02:54 PM
?

vdlrao
02-10-2012, 03:04 PM
There is nothing here that explicitly authorizes or mandates the counting of family members under the preference quotas. While a derivative is “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration” as the principal alien, nothing requires that family members also be given their own numbers. Suppose, for example, that there is only one visa number left in a fiscal year for the EB-2 category and that the last principal beneficiary who gets this number has a spouse and 6 children. What happens to them? Ought they not be accorded “the same status and the same order of consideration?” [/COLOR]

Can we take this to the Law Makers attention.

DallasBlue
02-10-2012, 03:10 PM
Can we take this to the Law Makers attention.
Advise the Advisor | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/advise)

DallasBlue
02-10-2012, 03:12 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/advise

starscream
02-10-2012, 03:25 PM
Is this is the same Mr. Endleman who has had come out with this article when 3012 cleared House Judiciary:

Gary Endelman On Immigration Policy and Law - Beware of What You Wish For: Is " The Fairness for HIgh-Skilled Immigration Act" Really A Good Idea? (http://blogs.ilw.com/garyendelman/2011/11/beware-of-what-you-wish-for-is-the-fairness-for-high-skilled-immigration-act-really-a-good-idea.html)

Beware of What You Wish For: Is " The Fairness for HIgh-Skilled Immigration Act" Really A Good Idea?

Refer to the read from ILW.COM - immigration news:Why We Can’t Wait: How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs with the Stroke of A Pen (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0201-endelman.shtm)

Why We Can’t Wait: How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs with the Stroke of A Pen

Cheers
Shining

DallasBlue
02-10-2012, 04:31 PM
Is this is the same Mr. Endleman who has had come out with this article when 3012 cleared House Judiciary:

Gary Endelman On Immigration Policy and Law - Beware of What You Wish For: Is " The Fairness for HIgh-Skilled Immigration Act" Really A Good Idea? (http://blogs.ilw.com/garyendelman/2011/11/beware-of-what-you-wish-for-is-the-fairness-for-high-skilled-immigration-act-really-a-good-idea.html)

Beware of What You Wish For: Is " The Fairness for HIgh-Skilled Immigration Act" Really A Good Idea?

yes looks so, but this article is also authored by Cyrus Mehta. I wish I could infer the INA/law as they are doing in the article to be substantiated, when presenting the point.

DallasBlue
02-10-2012, 05:46 PM
There is nothing here that explicitly authorizes or mandates the counting of family members under the preference quotas. While a derivative is “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration” as the principal alien, nothing requires that family members also be given their own numbers. Suppose, for example, that there is only one visa number left in a fiscal year for the EB-2 category and that the last principal beneficiary who gets this number has a spouse and 6 children. What happens to them? Ought they not be accorded “the same status and the same order of consideration?”


Can we take this to the Law Makers attention.

Probably should request/write to the President/whitehouse or USCIS to remove the spouses/dependent counts from the issued visas per year counts substantiating with the INA content.

honest123
02-11-2012, 06:51 AM
I just don't understand why US don't take advantage to improve the economic depression by allowing those wealthy foreign graduates to immigrate and start companies or buying houses to create jobs since so many foreign graduates want to immigrate to US????????????

sri1309
02-11-2012, 07:33 AM
All,
Looks like anti-forces are acting.
Please keep doing your action items more than ever.
I have also written just now to Whitehouse using the link below highlighting the issue and to pass 3012 ASAP.
No harm in spending your 10 min on this. Please do. Do as many times as you can..

Advise the Advisor | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/advise)

DallasBlue
02-15-2012, 09:28 AM
Is this is the same Mr. Endleman who has had come out with this article when 3012 cleared House Judiciary:

Gary Endelman On Immigration Policy and Law - Beware of What You Wish For: Is " The Fairness for HIgh-Skilled Immigration Act" Really A Good Idea? (http://blogs.ilw.com/garyendelman/2011/11/beware-of-what-you-wish-for-is-the-fairness-for-high-skilled-immigration-act-really-a-good-idea.html)

Beware of What You Wish For: Is " The Fairness for HIgh-Skilled Immigration Act" Really A Good Idea?

I think he could NOT explain how an engineer/doctor from one country is better than another country. That article was myopic.

cant this point turn the derivative count off ?




We know of no explicit authorization for derivative family members to be counted under either the Employment Based or Family Based preference in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Let us examine what INA § 203(d) says:


A spouse of child defined in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 1101(b) of this title shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.
There is nothing here that explicitly authorizes or mandates the counting of family members under the preference quotas. While a derivative is “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration” as the principal alien, nothing requires that family members also be given their own numbers. Suppose, for example, that there is only one visa number left in a fiscal year for the EB-2 category and that the last principal beneficiary who gets this number has a spouse and 6 children. What happens to them? Ought they not be accorded “the same status and the same order of consideration?” Should only the principal become an LPR while everyone else waits till next year? What if visa retrogression sets in and the family has to wait, maybe for years? This does not make sense. Is there not sufficient ambiguity in INA § 203(d) to argue that family members should not be counted against the cap? We do not contend that they should be completely exempted from being counted. As stated in INA 203 § (d), family members should be given the “same status and the same order of consideration” as the principal. Hence, if there is no visa number for the principal, the rest of the family does not get in. If, on the other hand, there is a single remaining visa number for the principal, the family members, however many there are, ought to be “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration as the principal.”


can USCIS implement this on its own by rule change?

DallasBlue
02-18-2012, 04:34 PM
wrote about the derivative counts off to DOS at

http://contact-us.state.gov/app/ask/

E-mail a Question/Comment (http://contact-us.state.gov/app/ask/)


Topic: consular|working in US | Greencards
subject: derivative counts

Question:

Greetings,

Could your office please look into and change the policy on derivate visa counts for employment based category. As articulated at
www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0201-endelman.shtm

We know of no explicit authorization for derivative family members to be counted under either the Employment Based or Family Based preference in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Let us examine what INA § 203(d) says:


A spouse of child defined in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 1101(b) of this title shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.
There is nothing here that explicitly authorizes or mandates the counting of family members under the preference quotas. While a derivative is “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration” as the principal alien, nothing requires that family members also be given their own numbers. Suppose, for example, that there is only one visa number left in a fiscal year for the EB-2 category and that the last principal beneficiary who gets this number has a spouse and 6 children. What happens to them? Ought they not be accorded “the same status and the same order of consideration?” Should only the principal become an LPR while everyone else waits till next year? What if visa retrogression sets in and the family has to wait, maybe for years? This does not make sense. Is there not sufficient ambiguity in INA § 203(d) to argue that family members should not be counted against the cap? We do not contend that they should be completely exempted from being counted. As stated in INA 203 § (d), family members should be given the “same status and the same order of consideration” as the principal. Hence, if there is no visa number for the principal, the rest of the family does not get in. If, on the other hand, there is a single remaining visa number for the principal, the family members, however many there are, ought to be “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration as the principal.”

Thanking you

shining
02-18-2012, 06:06 PM
Can IV core create an action item out of this --one off emails to whitehouse and one off questions sent may not come out effective, however, IV Core can help create a specific item to have a follow-up done on this, once this is done, folks visiting IV can perform this activity and anything coming out of grassroots like this one can be effective, who knows that this may be a no brainer and would get done easily.

Also, IV Core - Can you work with your legal advisories and see whether this is possible also or not--


I have seen many folks agreeing to this on this forum that it won't be a bad idea to pursue this while 3012 goes on--

IV Core - Can you comment on this??????

Folks - If you guys feel that this is a good idea --then comment on this thread to make it known to IV to pursue this--

Cheers
Shining


wrote about the derivative counts off to DOS at

E-mail a Question/Comment (http://contact-us.state.gov/app/ask/)

E-mail a Question/Comment (http://contact-us.state.gov/app/ask/)


Question:

Greetings,

Could your office please look into and change the policy on derivate visa counts for employment based category. As articulated at
ILW.COM - immigration news:Why We Can’t Wait: How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs with the Stroke of A Pen (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0201-endelman.shtm)
. . . . .
We know of no explicit authorization for derivative family members to be counted under Thanking you

greyhair
02-19-2012, 12:30 PM
Can IV core create an action item out of this --one off emails to whitehouse and one off questions sent may not come out effective, however, IV Core can help create a specific item to have a follow-up done on this, once this is done, folks visiting IV can perform this activity and anything coming out of grassroots like this one can be effective, who knows that this may be a no brainer and would get done easily.

Also, IV Core - Can you work with your legal advisories and see whether this is possible also or not--


I have seen many folks agreeing to this on this forum that it won't be a bad idea to pursue this while 3012 goes on--

IV Core - Can you comment on this??????

Folks - If you guys feel that this is a good idea --then comment on this thread to make it known to IV to pursue this--

Cheers
Shining

This is a horrible idea.

This crap from Gary Endelman is deeply offensive. This person, whosoever he is, has written against HR3012 in the past. Now that we are so close to getting the bill done, he wants to throw a diversion, telling us that something else is better. Oh ya, then what is this guy doing about getting this, whatever he can't wait for, done.

Because of Gary's writing, Cyrus Mehta is losing credibility in the marketplace because he is lending his name for such articles. If there is a good idea, Gary could have said that here is another idea. Why does the article has to compare and attack HR3012? Because he is attacking HR3012, I'll have to disagree with every idea presented in this article. As a community we have to mature and standup to protect our work. As someone else here said - Immigration lawyers are not gods. We must evaluate immigration lawyers very carefully. Trust but verify, meaning no trust.

IV Core,

I strongly urge you to not create any action item on this crappy idea. If Gary Endelman can't wait, let him lobby and work to make his idea happen. I hate this idea of someone asking creating action item because an obscure immigration lawyer says 'this or that' is a good (or better) idea. I want HR3012 and I want it now, before everything else. If you want to work on anything, then you have to wait for HR3012 to pass. We should not spend any energy on anything until HR3012 passes.

I'm keeping a list of all immigration lawyers who have posted against HR3012. I've created pdf of their articles/postings every time they write against HR3012. The reason is, the same lawyers will write articles claiming they were the once pushing for HR3012 when the bill passes the Senate. After the bill passes, I plan to post the compilation of the articles and comments of these people showing how they were against HR3012 before they were for it.

a.j.2048
02-19-2012, 01:43 PM
The guy is a lawyer, so nothing stops him from suing the DOS on behalf of his clients if he believes he has a case.

shining
02-19-2012, 09:37 PM
I know you have an angst against Gary and other lawyers--however, qn is whether what is being suggested --is that possible? If it is --then why is pursuing this in addition to HR 3012 should be an issue -we should try multiple options--

Thoughts?

Cheers
Shining

This is a horrible idea.

This crap from Gary Endelman is deeply offensive. This person, whosoever he is, has written against HR3012 in the past. Now that we are so close to getting the bill done, he wants to throw a diversion, telling us that something else is better. Oh ya, then what is this guy doing about getting this, whatever he can't wait for, done.

Because of Gary's writing, Cyrus Mehta is losing credibility in the marketplace because he is lending his name for such articles. If there is a good idea, Gary could have said that here is another idea. Why does the article has to compare and attack HR3012? Because he is attacking HR3012, I'll have to disagree with every idea presented in this article. As a community we have to mature and standup to protect our work. As someone else here said - Immigration lawyers are not gods. We must evaluate immigration lawyers very carefully. Trust but verify, meaning no trust.

IV Core,

I strongly urge you to not create any action item on this crappy idea. If Gary Endelman can't wait, let him lobby and work to make his idea happen. I hate this idea of someone asking creating action item because an obscure immigration lawyer says 'this or that' is a good (or better) idea. I want HR3012 and I want it now, before everything else. If you want to work on anything, then you have to wait for HR3012 to pass. We should not spend any energy on anything until HR3012 passes.

I'm keeping a list of all immigration lawyers who have posted against HR3012. I've created pdf of their articles/postings every time they write against HR3012. The reason is, the same lawyers will write articles claiming they were the once pushing for HR3012 when the bill passes the Senate. After the bill passes, I plan to post the compilation of the articles and comments of these people showing how they were against HR3012 before they were for it.

a.j.2048
02-20-2012, 02:34 AM
I know you have an angst against Gary and other lawyers--however, qn is whether what is being suggested --is that possible? If it is --then why is pursuing this in addition to HR 3012 should be an issue -we should try multiple options--

Thoughts?

Cheers
Shining

If counting the derivatives was against the law, this lawyer would have been in court fighting for it on behalf of his clients. Other lawyers like Rajiv Khanna have sued the government for far less.

The fact that this lawyer is reduced to writing articles out of court means that he doesn't have a case.

DallasBlue
05-31-2012, 09:05 PM
Probably derivative counts need to be excluded from the EB category , and may be they should be added to FB category ?

DallasBlue
07-19-2012, 02:06 PM
Just checked the video. Rep. Chaftez did ask Sec. Napolitano, if the administration is ok with the removal of per-country cap removal. She replied that she will have to check on that but she thinks that is right.

Here you go :

Homeland Security Oversight - C-SPAN Video Library (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SecurityOversi)


Can Sec. Napolitano do some admin fix / executive fix on derivative count off ?

DallasBlue
08-05-2012, 03:24 PM
pursuing derivatives count off for EB category with DHS Secretary

wrote about the derivative counts off to DOS at

http://contact-us.state.gov/app/ask/


Topic: consular|working in US | Greencards
subject: derivative counts

Question:

Greetings,

Could your office please look into and change the policy on derivate visa counts for employment based category. As articulated at
www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0201-endelman.shtm

We know of no explicit authorization for derivative family members to be counted under either the Employment Based or Family Based preference in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Let us examine what INA § 203(d) says:


A spouse of child defined in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 1101(b) of this title shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.
There is nothing here that explicitly authorizes or mandates the counting of family members under the preference quotas. While a derivative is “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration” as the principal alien, nothing requires that family members also be given their own numbers. Suppose, for example, that there is only one visa number left in a fiscal year for the EB-2 category and that the last principal beneficiary who gets this number has a spouse and 6 children. What happens to them? Ought they not be accorded “the same status and the same order of consideration?” Should only the principal become an LPR while everyone else waits till next year? What if visa retrogression sets in and the family has to wait, maybe for years? This does not make sense. Is there not sufficient ambiguity in INA § 203(d) to argue that family members should not be counted against the cap? We do not contend that they should be completely exempted from being counted. As stated in INA 203 § (d), family members should be given the “same status and the same order of consideration” as the principal. Hence, if there is no visa number for the principal, the rest of the family does not get in. If, on the other hand, there is a single remaining visa number for the principal, the family members, however many there are, ought to be “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration as the principal.”

Thanking you




can we everyone send this to the white advisor? Advise the Advisor | The White House

Advise the Advisor | The White House


How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs with the Stroke of A Pen

ilw.com/articles/2012,0201-endelman.shtm


ILW.COM - immigration news:Why We Can’t Wait: How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs with the Stroke of A Pen


At this point, if one files a labor certification in 2011 under the employment-based third preference for India, it will take 70 years before the green card materializes![3] The adult son or daughter who was born in Mexico of a US citizen does much better relatively under the family-based first preference, but the wait is still close to 20 years! Such a hopeless wait is simply untenable for an employer who has unsuccessfully tested the US labor market for much needed skills in short supply. It is similarly inhumane for a parent to yearn for so long to reunite with her son. Mind you, we are talking here about legal immigration, and those who rail against unauthorized immigrants accuse them for not getting into the line. But when the avenues for legal immigration are few and the lines endless, the system has broken and we are dealing with a situation, in the face of Congressional paralysis, that is going from bad to abysmal. We acknowledge that the House recently passed H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act on September 22, 2011 by a landslide vote of 389-15, which if passed, will eliminate the employment-based per country limits and increase the family-based per country cap from 7% to 15%. , H.R 3012,on the other hand, will not increase the overall number of immigrant visas. While it may reduce the waiting times for China and India in the employment-based preferences, nationals of all other countries may experience backlogs, especially in the employment-based second preference. Thus, the problems of backlogs will still remain. While we acknowledge that only Congress can create more avenues for legal immigration, is there a legal basis for an interpretation that would dramatically reduce, or even eliminate, such a long wait under the EB and FB preferences? We think there is.

We know of no explicit authorization for derivative family members to be counted under either the Employment Based or Family Based preference in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Let us examine what INA § 203(d) says:


A spouse of child defined in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 1101(b) of this title shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.
There is nothing here that explicitly authorizes or mandates the counting of family members under the preference quotas. While a derivative is “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration” as the principal alien, nothing requires that family members also be given their own numbers. Suppose, for example, that there is only one visa number left in a fiscal year for the EB-2 category and that the last principal beneficiary who gets this number has a spouse and 6 children. What happens to them? Ought they not be accorded “the same status and the same order of consideration?” Should only the principal become an LPR while everyone else waits till next year? What if visa retrogression sets in and the family has to wait, maybe for years? This does not make sense. Is there not sufficient ambiguity in INA § 203(d) to argue that family members should not be counted against the cap? We do not contend that they should be completely exempted from being counted. As stated in INA 203 § (d), family members should be given the “same status and the same order of consideration” as the principal. Hence, if there is no visa number for the principal, the rest of the family does not get in. If, on the other hand, there is a single remaining visa number for the principal, the family members, however many there are, ought to be “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration as the principal.”

DallasBlue
08-05-2012, 03:26 PM
pursuing derivatives count off for EB category with DHS Secretary

wrote about the derivative counts off to DOS at

http://contact-us.state.gov/app/ask/


Topic: consular|working in US | Greencards
subject: derivative counts

Question:

Greetings,

Could your office please look into and change the policy on derivate visa counts for employment based category. As articulated at
www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0201-endelman.shtm

We know of no explicit authorization for derivative family members to be counted under either the Employment Based or Family Based preference in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Let us examine what INA § 203(d) says:


A spouse of child defined in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 1101(b) of this title shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.
There is nothing here that explicitly authorizes or mandates the counting of family members under the preference quotas. While a derivative is “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration” as the principal alien, nothing requires that family members also be given their own numbers. Suppose, for example, that there is only one visa number left in a fiscal year for the EB-2 category and that the last principal beneficiary who gets this number has a spouse and 6 children. What happens to them? Ought they not be accorded “the same status and the same order of consideration?” Should only the principal become an LPR while everyone else waits till next year? What if visa retrogression sets in and the family has to wait, maybe for years? This does not make sense. Is there not sufficient ambiguity in INA § 203(d) to argue that family members should not be counted against the cap? We do not contend that they should be completely exempted from being counted. As stated in INA 203 § (d), family members should be given the “same status and the same order of consideration” as the principal. Hence, if there is no visa number for the principal, the rest of the family does not get in. If, on the other hand, there is a single remaining visa number for the principal, the family members, however many there are, ought to be “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration as the principal.”

Thanking you




can we everyone send this to the white advisor? Advise the Advisor | The White House

Advise the Advisor | The White House


How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs with the Stroke of A Pen

ilw.com/articles/2012,0201-endelman.shtm


ILW.COM - immigration news:Why We Can’t Wait: How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs with the Stroke of A Pen


At this point, if one files a labor certification in 2011 under the employment-based third preference for India, it will take 70 years before the green card materializes![3] The adult son or daughter who was born in Mexico of a US citizen does much better relatively under the family-based first preference, but the wait is still close to 20 years! Such a hopeless wait is simply untenable for an employer who has unsuccessfully tested the US labor market for much needed skills in short supply. It is similarly inhumane for a parent to yearn for so long to reunite with her son. Mind you, we are talking here about legal immigration, and those who rail against unauthorized immigrants accuse them for not getting into the line. But when the avenues for legal immigration are few and the lines endless, the system has broken and we are dealing with a situation, in the face of Congressional paralysis, that is going from bad to abysmal. We acknowledge that the House recently passed H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act on September 22, 2011 by a landslide vote of 389-15, which if passed, will eliminate the employment-based per country limits and increase the family-based per country cap from 7% to 15%. , H.R 3012,on the other hand, will not increase the overall number of immigrant visas. While it may reduce the waiting times for China and India in the employment-based preferences, nationals of all other countries may experience backlogs, especially in the employment-based second preference. Thus, the problems of backlogs will still remain. While we acknowledge that only Congress can create more avenues for legal immigration, is there a legal basis for an interpretation that would dramatically reduce, or even eliminate, such a long wait under the EB and FB preferences? We think there is.

We know of no explicit authorization for derivative family members to be counted under either the Employment Based or Family Based preference in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Let us examine what INA § 203(d) says:


A spouse of child defined in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 1101(b) of this title shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.
There is nothing here that explicitly authorizes or mandates the counting of family members under the preference quotas. While a derivative is “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration” as the principal alien, nothing requires that family members also be given their own numbers. Suppose, for example, that there is only one visa number left in a fiscal year for the EB-2 category and that the last principal beneficiary who gets this number has a spouse and 6 children. What happens to them? Ought they not be accorded “the same status and the same order of consideration?” Should only the principal become an LPR while everyone else waits till next year? What if visa retrogression sets in and the family has to wait, maybe for years? This does not make sense. Is there not sufficient ambiguity in INA § 203(d) to argue that family members should not be counted against the cap? We do not contend that they should be completely exempted from being counted. As stated in INA 203 § (d), family members should be given the “same status and the same order of consideration” as the principal. Hence, if there is no visa number for the principal, the rest of the family does not get in. If, on the other hand, there is a single remaining visa number for the principal, the family members, however many there are, ought to be “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration as the principal.”

DallasBlue
10-30-2012, 02:21 PM
Can USCIS initiate an admin fix on its own and publish it in federal register ?

Fairnessforall
10-30-2012, 06:34 PM
After multiple experiences from different lawyers I have reached the conclusion that

Lawyers DO NOT Want retrogression issues to be fixed. They are salivating at money that they can make in PORTING. Uscis has created a wonderful opportunity for them to profit from same client twice/ sometimes even 3 times! Why in the world will they want a solution?

Proof: Perm filing fees have significantly increased. Hourly consultation fees have increased . Thanks to Uscis, anti-immigrants, do-nothing congress and our bad luck, the lawyers are having a good time!

Lets stick to agenda (HR3012) and not get distracted.
Btw: why is this Edelman guy coming out with his/her brilliant idea 7 years after retrogression has set in?

May Fairness prevail!

bpratap
10-31-2012, 01:59 PM
One more person realized the truth.

IV have been telling this Loud and clear for a long time.

Better late than Never !


After multiple experiences from different lawyers I have reached the conclusion that

Lawyers DO NOT Want retrogression issues to be fixed. They are salivating at money that they can make in PORTING. Uscis has created a wonderful opportunity for them to profit from same client twice/ sometimes even 3 times! Why in the world will they want a solution?

Proof: Perm filing fees have significantly increased. Hourly consultation fees have increased . Thanks to Uscis, anti-immigrants, do-nothing congress and our bad luck, the lawyers are having a good time!

Lets stick to agenda (HR3012) and not get distracted.
Btw: why is this Edelman guy coming out with his/her brilliant idea 7 years after retrogression has set in?

May Fairness prevail!

DallasBlue
12-14-2012, 06:58 PM
Can USCIS initiate an admin fix on its own and publish it in federal register ?

when uscis proposes to issue ead for h4's , can they propose eb derivate count off for EB GC's ?

DallasBlue
01-16-2013, 06:25 PM
executive order for EB derivate count off

DallasBlue
02-07-2013, 11:49 AM
derivative count off , DOS / USCIS can determine this derivative count off thing and publish some memo or rule , like ead's for h4's.

When USCIS can streamline and clear greencard backlogs with sensible rules yet they wont do anything just and fair if its losing their revenue. Is the USCIS's sole objective to make money from the backlogged applications/people - who are cash cows for them.