Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

S. 3514 Reuniting Families Act

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • S. 3514 Reuniting Families Act

    Does anyone know (in layman's terms) what this legislation is proposing? It probably doesn't have a chance in hell of passing with our current Cogress, but I'm just curious what its purpose is.

    http://www.aila.org/content/fileview...&linkid=183624

  • #2
    Does anyone know (in layman's terms) what this legislation is proposing? It probably doesn't have a chance in hell of passing with our current Cogress, but I'm just curious what its purpose is.

    http://www.aila.org/content/fileview...&linkid=183624

    Comment


    • #3
      I know, I read the bill yesterday. Short and sweet, precise, and goes to the heart of problem solving bringing back some fairness to the immigration world.

      Comment


      • #4
        This sounds like a good bill then, right? I can't sort through all the terms they use, so that's why I asked for clarification. Thanks guys!

        Comment


        • #5
          With impeding rise in unemployed (as foretold by Federal Reserve and Treasury Dept), this probably is not the best time to introduce a bill that will increase number of foreign empoloyees.
          It would have somewhat better chances to pass in 2000. But in October of 2008?

          Family Unification part is good, but will also be railroaded and thrown out of any bill it may make into anytime soon.

          Now why read and study a bill that has no realictic chances of becoming a law?
          http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

          "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

          Comment


          • #6
            I do not see an increase in foreign employees. These employees are already here through work visa and merely converting it to Permanent Resident through employment.

            If someone feels that the jobs are taken from Americans, then it was done already! At least one should be happy that they are not outsourced and these people are paying taxes and living legally.

            Comment


            • #7
              It does increase, one way or another.
              Go to immigration.com forum, see how many people talk about moving out because they can't wait for their LPR be processed.
              Those on H1 are subject to yearly extensions after 6 years, all the way til' they get GC.
              Obviously subject to employment requirements in the meantime.
              Unemployment rate may go up anytime soon, so you do the math.
              http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

              "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

              Comment


              • #8
                some parts of this silly bill will only encourage more bogus marriages if the penalties for overstaying, ewi-ing or being deported are relaxed....stop rewarding enemabag cleaning illegals...there is no reason to do so...and who cares if they marry the village idiot....tough...deport them anyway.

                Comment


                • #9
                  <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProudUSC:
                  This sounds like a good bill then, right? I can't sort through all the terms they use, so that's why I asked for clarification. Thanks guys! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                  Proud,
                  I think AILA got the links mixed up, but I found the section by section analysis of the bill. Hope this helps.
                  "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hudson:
                    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProudUSC:
                    This sounds like a good bill then, right? I can't sort through all the terms they use, so that's why I asked for clarification. Thanks guys! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                    Proud,
                    I think AILA got the links mixed up, but I found the section by section analysis of the bill. Hope this helps. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                    Thanks, Hudson. This version was much easier to understand.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldE:

                      Those on H1 are subject to yearly extensions after 6 years, all the way til' they get GC.

                      </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                      Hi OldE,

                      If the I-140 is approved, then one can get their H1 extended in 3 year time periods.

                      Thanks

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I think part of the recapture provisions are drawn from HR 5882 in this bill. Does that means that HR 5882 is dead now?

                        Thanks

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Retro-affect:
                          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldE:

                          Those on H1 are subject to yearly extensions after 6 years, all the way til' they get GC.

                          </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                          Hi OldE,

                          If the I-140 is approved, then one can get their H1 extended in 3 year time periods.

                          Thanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                          Perhaps it's a regulation that took effect at some later years and evaded my attention.

                          In any event: granting more LPRs to workers will most certainly increase the number of immigrants.

                          1. In case of someone who is on H1b it will encourage them to stay until' approved. I have browsed the immigration.com forum and seen many people posting about their intentions to leave for somewhere else.

                          2. Even if someone is allowed by law to indefinitely have their H1 status extended (whether in one year or three year increments), one must be still in valid status to qualify for adjustment.
                          With economy going down and companies downsizing, chances are that those who don't get adjusted soon enough will not make it at all because they may simply get terminated from their jobs before eligible to file I-485.

                          I don't think this bill has a chance to pass at this moment.

                          As to family provisions, those are good but would also be defeated during debates because adding immediate relative categories would significantly increase the number of qualified LPR's, aside from adding numbers for years when not enough visas were issued.
                          Not something to be expected after more than a decade of historic high level of immigration.

                          All the best
                          http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

                          "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Retro-affect:
                            I think part of the recapture provisions are drawn from HR 5882 in this bill. Does that means that HR 5882 is dead now?

                            Thanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
                            More than likely, they will be combined in a joint resooution. Generally, Congressional representatives and Senators will introduce similar bills in respect to their jurisdiction to maximize passage of a issue.
                            "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              If any of these amendments are attached to "must pass" bills, well, it would then have at least microscopic prospects of being enacted into law, however, I don't foresee how this could be achieved nowdays.

                              Expect extremely heated debates if it ever makes to floor.

                              I look at Senate and House and I see a sea and powerful currents.
                              I see them clash. I see how the process goes.
                              I don't see that current ending up going in the direction that those introcuding such bills intend.
                              http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

                              "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

                              Comment



                              Working...
                              X