OT – Illegal’s, Arizona, and Obama…

[afx114]

Stephen Colbert’s Congressional testimony on immigration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t39uqg6e4so

[briansd1]

[quote=afx114]Stephen Colbert’s Congressional testimony on immigration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t39uqg6e4so

[/quote]

That was fun. I loved it.

The best part is in the questions-and-answers session when Colbert explains why he’s advocating for immigrants.

Here’s the full video:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/09/24/VI2010092402502.html

[briansd1]

[quote=afx114]Stephen Colbert’s Congressional testimony on immigration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t39uqg6e4so

[/quote]

That was fun. I loved it.

The best part is in the questions-and-answers session when Colbert explains why he’s advocating for immigrants.

Here’s the full video:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/09/24/VI2010092402502.html

[briansd1]

[quote=afx114]Stephen Colbert’s Congressional testimony on immigration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t39uqg6e4so

[/quote]

That was fun. I loved it.

The best part is in the questions-and-answers session when Colbert explains why he’s advocating for immigrants.

Here’s the full video:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/09/24/VI2010092402502.html

[briansd1]

[quote=afx114]Stephen Colbert’s Congressional testimony on immigration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t39uqg6e4so

[/quote]

That was fun. I loved it.

The best part is in the questions-and-answers session when Colbert explains why he’s advocating for immigrants.

Here’s the full video:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/09/24/VI2010092402502.html

[briansd1]

[quote=afx114]Stephen Colbert’s Congressional testimony on immigration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t39uqg6e4so

[/quote]

That was fun. I loved it.

The best part is in the questions-and-answers session when Colbert explains why he’s advocating for immigrants.

Here’s the full video:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/09/24/VI2010092402502.html

[all]

[quote=briansd1]
Direct the anger at the lawmakers.
It’s politics. The Republicans just blocked the defense spending bill just because they could.

Those young adults immigrants who live in the underground and might benefit from the Dream Act didn’t do anything to oppose anything. They don’t even get a vote. Their getting legalized does not change the status of employment based immigrants in the least.
[/quote]
Reid should bring it up for vote as a standalone act.

There are consequences and I listed some in the original thread, but you refuse to recognize them as valid. E.g. your recently legalized illegals will be able to petition for their illegally present parents and further clog the funnel. Just look at the consequences of 1980’s amnesty on family-based immigration.

There is not enough cake (ever) for everyone and EB’s are frustrated with pro-illegals the same way you are frustrated with deadbeats.

[quote=briansd1]
Please give me some examples of bills friendly to employment based immigrants that were killed by Democrats. By that, I mean legislation written but voted down or not allowed a vote by Democrats.

Also please give me examples of bills friendly to employment based immigrants initiated by Republicans.[/quote]

Will that change something? 🙂

Look up SKIL Act. Gets introduced almost every year since 2006,I believe. Supported by John Shadegg, John Cornyn, Chuck Hagel… There was also High-Tech Worker Relief Act.

An attempt to recapture about 200K of unused EB numbers ‘almost’ succeeded back in 2005.
If annual EB quota is not used up the leftovers are wasted and there is always some waste due to administrative inefficiencies. The provision passed in the Senate (after senators Feinstein an Byrd tried to kill it), but it did not survive the reconciliation session. It has the backing of Heritage foundation and you can guess who killed it.

[all]

[quote=briansd1]
Direct the anger at the lawmakers.
It’s politics. The Republicans just blocked the defense spending bill just because they could.

Those young adults immigrants who live in the underground and might benefit from the Dream Act didn’t do anything to oppose anything. They don’t even get a vote. Their getting legalized does not change the status of employment based immigrants in the least.
[/quote]
Reid should bring it up for vote as a standalone act.

There are consequences and I listed some in the original thread, but you refuse to recognize them as valid. E.g. your recently legalized illegals will be able to petition for their illegally present parents and further clog the funnel. Just look at the consequences of 1980’s amnesty on family-based immigration.

There is not enough cake (ever) for everyone and EB’s are frustrated with pro-illegals the same way you are frustrated with deadbeats.

[quote=briansd1]
Please give me some examples of bills friendly to employment based immigrants that were killed by Democrats. By that, I mean legislation written but voted down or not allowed a vote by Democrats.

Also please give me examples of bills friendly to employment based immigrants initiated by Republicans.[/quote]

Will that change something? 🙂

Look up SKIL Act. Gets introduced almost every year since 2006,I believe. Supported by John Shadegg, John Cornyn, Chuck Hagel… There was also High-Tech Worker Relief Act.

An attempt to recapture about 200K of unused EB numbers ‘almost’ succeeded back in 2005.
If annual EB quota is not used up the leftovers are wasted and there is always some waste due to administrative inefficiencies. The provision passed in the Senate (after senators Feinstein an Byrd tried to kill it), but it did not survive the reconciliation session. It has the backing of Heritage foundation and you can guess who killed it.

[all]

[quote=briansd1]
Direct the anger at the lawmakers.
It’s politics. The Republicans just blocked the defense spending bill just because they could.

Those young adults immigrants who live in the underground and might benefit from the Dream Act didn’t do anything to oppose anything. They don’t even get a vote. Their getting legalized does not change the status of employment based immigrants in the least.
[/quote]
Reid should bring it up for vote as a standalone act.

There are consequences and I listed some in the original thread, but you refuse to recognize them as valid. E.g. your recently legalized illegals will be able to petition for their illegally present parents and further clog the funnel. Just look at the consequences of 1980’s amnesty on family-based immigration.

There is not enough cake (ever) for everyone and EB’s are frustrated with pro-illegals the same way you are frustrated with deadbeats.

[quote=briansd1]
Please give me some examples of bills friendly to employment based immigrants that were killed by Democrats. By that, I mean legislation written but voted down or not allowed a vote by Democrats.

Also please give me examples of bills friendly to employment based immigrants initiated by Republicans.[/quote]

Will that change something? 🙂

Look up SKIL Act. Gets introduced almost every year since 2006,I believe. Supported by John Shadegg, John Cornyn, Chuck Hagel… There was also High-Tech Worker Relief Act.

An attempt to recapture about 200K of unused EB numbers ‘almost’ succeeded back in 2005.
If annual EB quota is not used up the leftovers are wasted and there is always some waste due to administrative inefficiencies. The provision passed in the Senate (after senators Feinstein an Byrd tried to kill it), but it did not survive the reconciliation session. It has the backing of Heritage foundation and you can guess who killed it.

[all]

[quote=briansd1]
Direct the anger at the lawmakers.
It’s politics. The Republicans just blocked the defense spending bill just because they could.

Those young adults immigrants who live in the underground and might benefit from the Dream Act didn’t do anything to oppose anything. They don’t even get a vote. Their getting legalized does not change the status of employment based immigrants in the least.
[/quote]
Reid should bring it up for vote as a standalone act.

There are consequences and I listed some in the original thread, but you refuse to recognize them as valid. E.g. your recently legalized illegals will be able to petition for their illegally present parents and further clog the funnel. Just look at the consequences of 1980’s amnesty on family-based immigration.

There is not enough cake (ever) for everyone and EB’s are frustrated with pro-illegals the same way you are frustrated with deadbeats.

[quote=briansd1]
Please give me some examples of bills friendly to employment based immigrants that were killed by Democrats. By that, I mean legislation written but voted down or not allowed a vote by Democrats.

Also please give me examples of bills friendly to employment based immigrants initiated by Republicans.[/quote]

Will that change something? 🙂

Look up SKIL Act. Gets introduced almost every year since 2006,I believe. Supported by John Shadegg, John Cornyn, Chuck Hagel… There was also High-Tech Worker Relief Act.

An attempt to recapture about 200K of unused EB numbers ‘almost’ succeeded back in 2005.
If annual EB quota is not used up the leftovers are wasted and there is always some waste due to administrative inefficiencies. The provision passed in the Senate (after senators Feinstein an Byrd tried to kill it), but it did not survive the reconciliation session. It has the backing of Heritage foundation and you can guess who killed it.

[all]

[quote=briansd1]
Direct the anger at the lawmakers.
It’s politics. The Republicans just blocked the defense spending bill just because they could.

Those young adults immigrants who live in the underground and might benefit from the Dream Act didn’t do anything to oppose anything. They don’t even get a vote. Their getting legalized does not change the status of employment based immigrants in the least.
[/quote]
Reid should bring it up for vote as a standalone act.

There are consequences and I listed some in the original thread, but you refuse to recognize them as valid. E.g. your recently legalized illegals will be able to petition for their illegally present parents and further clog the funnel. Just look at the consequences of 1980’s amnesty on family-based immigration.

There is not enough cake (ever) for everyone and EB’s are frustrated with pro-illegals the same way you are frustrated with deadbeats.

[quote=briansd1]
Please give me some examples of bills friendly to employment based immigrants that were killed by Democrats. By that, I mean legislation written but voted down or not allowed a vote by Democrats.

Also please give me examples of bills friendly to employment based immigrants initiated by Republicans.[/quote]

Will that change something? 🙂

Look up SKIL Act. Gets introduced almost every year since 2006,I believe. Supported by John Shadegg, John Cornyn, Chuck Hagel… There was also High-Tech Worker Relief Act.

An attempt to recapture about 200K of unused EB numbers ‘almost’ succeeded back in 2005.
If annual EB quota is not used up the leftovers are wasted and there is always some waste due to administrative inefficiencies. The provision passed in the Senate (after senators Feinstein an Byrd tried to kill it), but it did not survive the reconciliation session. It has the backing of Heritage foundation and you can guess who killed it.

[briansd1]

[quote=captcha] E.g. your recently legalized illegals will be able to petition for their illegally present parents and further clog the funnel.
[/quote]

[quote=captcha]
There is not enough cake (ever) for everyone and EB’s are frustrated with pro-illegals the same way you are frustrated with deadbeats.
[/quote]

As I said before, this is not an either or situation. Legalization of unauthorized immigrants does not impair the prospects for employment-based immigrants.

Family based immigration does not take away from employment-based applications.

The SKIL Act is part of comprehensive immigration reform. But immigration reform is being held up.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec10/immigration_07-01.html

Democracts have addressed the needs of employment based immigrants.
http://www.cio.com/article/197100/Bill_Would_Double_Cap_on_H_1B_Visas

Look and see who is most voraciously anti-immigrant (legal or otherwise).
http://americancitizensunited.cloverpad.org/Default.aspx?pageId=466644

Immigration advocates tend to focus on unauthorized immigrants because they are the most vulnerable. Stephen Colbert said it well.

In contract, consider that H1B workers in America are legal, do have rights, good jobs and good salaries. Yes, they have to wait a long time for a Green Card.

Yes, the immigration process is difficult for H1B. Focus on the process. Vilifying unauthorized immigrants does nothing to improve employment-based immigration.

If you look at the big picture, almost all immigration is employment-based and employer-sponsored. As far as I’m concerned, unauthorized immigrants who install drywall or pick strawberries for cash are also employment-based immigrants.

[briansd1]

[quote=captcha] E.g. your recently legalized illegals will be able to petition for their illegally present parents and further clog the funnel.
[/quote]

[quote=captcha]
There is not enough cake (ever) for everyone and EB’s are frustrated with pro-illegals the same way you are frustrated with deadbeats.
[/quote]

As I said before, this is not an either or situation. Legalization of unauthorized immigrants does not impair the prospects for employment-based immigrants.

Family based immigration does not take away from employment-based applications.

The SKIL Act is part of comprehensive immigration reform. But immigration reform is being held up.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec10/immigration_07-01.html

Democracts have addressed the needs of employment based immigrants.
http://www.cio.com/article/197100/Bill_Would_Double_Cap_on_H_1B_Visas

Look and see who is most voraciously anti-immigrant (legal or otherwise).
http://americancitizensunited.cloverpad.org/Default.aspx?pageId=466644

Immigration advocates tend to focus on unauthorized immigrants because they are the most vulnerable. Stephen Colbert said it well.

In contract, consider that H1B workers in America are legal, do have rights, good jobs and good salaries. Yes, they have to wait a long time for a Green Card.

Yes, the immigration process is difficult for H1B. Focus on the process. Vilifying unauthorized immigrants does nothing to improve employment-based immigration.

If you look at the big picture, almost all immigration is employment-based and employer-sponsored. As far as I’m concerned, unauthorized immigrants who install drywall or pick strawberries for cash are also employment-based immigrants.

[briansd1]

[quote=captcha] E.g. your recently legalized illegals will be able to petition for their illegally present parents and further clog the funnel.
[/quote]

[quote=captcha]
There is not enough cake (ever) for everyone and EB’s are frustrated with pro-illegals the same way you are frustrated with deadbeats.
[/quote]

As I said before, this is not an either or situation. Legalization of unauthorized immigrants does not impair the prospects for employment-based immigrants.

Family based immigration does not take away from employment-based applications.

The SKIL Act is part of comprehensive immigration reform. But immigration reform is being held up.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec10/immigration_07-01.html

Democracts have addressed the needs of employment based immigrants.
http://www.cio.com/article/197100/Bill_Would_Double_Cap_on_H_1B_Visas

Look and see who is most voraciously anti-immigrant (legal or otherwise).
http://americancitizensunited.cloverpad.org/Default.aspx?pageId=466644

Immigration advocates tend to focus on unauthorized immigrants because they are the most vulnerable. Stephen Colbert said it well.

In contract, consider that H1B workers in America are legal, do have rights, good jobs and good salaries. Yes, they have to wait a long time for a Green Card.

Yes, the immigration process is difficult for H1B. Focus on the process. Vilifying unauthorized immigrants does nothing to improve employment-based immigration.

If you look at the big picture, almost all immigration is employment-based and employer-sponsored. As far as I’m concerned, unauthorized immigrants who install drywall or pick strawberries for cash are also employment-based immigrants.

[briansd1]

[quote=captcha] E.g. your recently legalized illegals will be able to petition for their illegally present parents and further clog the funnel.
[/quote]

[quote=captcha]
There is not enough cake (ever) for everyone and EB’s are frustrated with pro-illegals the same way you are frustrated with deadbeats.
[/quote]

As I said before, this is not an either or situation. Legalization of unauthorized immigrants does not impair the prospects for employment-based immigrants.

Family based immigration does not take away from employment-based applications.

The SKIL Act is part of comprehensive immigration reform. But immigration reform is being held up.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec10/immigration_07-01.html

Democracts have addressed the needs of employment based immigrants.
http://www.cio.com/article/197100/Bill_Would_Double_Cap_on_H_1B_Visas

Look and see who is most voraciously anti-immigrant (legal or otherwise).
http://americancitizensunited.cloverpad.org/Default.aspx?pageId=466644

Immigration advocates tend to focus on unauthorized immigrants because they are the most vulnerable. Stephen Colbert said it well.

In contract, consider that H1B workers in America are legal, do have rights, good jobs and good salaries. Yes, they have to wait a long time for a Green Card.

Yes, the immigration process is difficult for H1B. Focus on the process. Vilifying unauthorized immigrants does nothing to improve employment-based immigration.

If you look at the big picture, almost all immigration is employment-based and employer-sponsored. As far as I’m concerned, unauthorized immigrants who install drywall or pick strawberries for cash are also employment-based immigrants.

[Author]

Posts