[all]

[quote=pri_dk]
Here’s a hint:

One has an Arabic name, the other has a Serbian name.
[/quote]

Jakubec is not a Serbian name.

[all]

[quote=pri_dk]
Here’s a hint:

One has an Arabic name, the other has a Serbian name.
[/quote]

Jakubec is not a Serbian name.

[all]

[quote=pri_dk]
Here’s a hint:

One has an Arabic name, the other has a Serbian name.
[/quote]

Jakubec is not a Serbian name.

[all]

[quote=pri_dk]
Here’s a hint:

One has an Arabic name, the other has a Serbian name.
[/quote]

Jakubec is not a Serbian name.

[all]

[quote=pri_dk]
Here’s a hint:

One has an Arabic name, the other has a Serbian name.
[/quote]

Jakubec is not a Serbian name.

[all]

As I correctly assumed the examples I delivered made no difference. The one example you managed to ferret (H1B cap increase) does nothing to address the needs of employment based immigrants. Au contraire, it increases the inflow without adjusting the outflow.

You can try to use the pointers I gave you and some of your compassion to understand why EB immigrants feel hostages of Democrats and their pro-illegal agenda.

Or you can keep trying to blur the difference between those who broke no law, make decent salaries, pay decent taxes and on average contribute more than they consume and the lawbreakers (or as you might prefer ‘unauthorized workers’).

[all]

As I correctly assumed the examples I delivered made no difference. The one example you managed to ferret (H1B cap increase) does nothing to address the needs of employment based immigrants. Au contraire, it increases the inflow without adjusting the outflow.

You can try to use the pointers I gave you and some of your compassion to understand why EB immigrants feel hostages of Democrats and their pro-illegal agenda.

Or you can keep trying to blur the difference between those who broke no law, make decent salaries, pay decent taxes and on average contribute more than they consume and the lawbreakers (or as you might prefer ‘unauthorized workers’).

[all]

As I correctly assumed the examples I delivered made no difference. The one example you managed to ferret (H1B cap increase) does nothing to address the needs of employment based immigrants. Au contraire, it increases the inflow without adjusting the outflow.

You can try to use the pointers I gave you and some of your compassion to understand why EB immigrants feel hostages of Democrats and their pro-illegal agenda.

Or you can keep trying to blur the difference between those who broke no law, make decent salaries, pay decent taxes and on average contribute more than they consume and the lawbreakers (or as you might prefer ‘unauthorized workers’).

[all]

As I correctly assumed the examples I delivered made no difference. The one example you managed to ferret (H1B cap increase) does nothing to address the needs of employment based immigrants. Au contraire, it increases the inflow without adjusting the outflow.

You can try to use the pointers I gave you and some of your compassion to understand why EB immigrants feel hostages of Democrats and their pro-illegal agenda.

Or you can keep trying to blur the difference between those who broke no law, make decent salaries, pay decent taxes and on average contribute more than they consume and the lawbreakers (or as you might prefer ‘unauthorized workers’).

[all]

As I correctly assumed the examples I delivered made no difference. The one example you managed to ferret (H1B cap increase) does nothing to address the needs of employment based immigrants. Au contraire, it increases the inflow without adjusting the outflow.

You can try to use the pointers I gave you and some of your compassion to understand why EB immigrants feel hostages of Democrats and their pro-illegal agenda.

Or you can keep trying to blur the difference between those who broke no law, make decent salaries, pay decent taxes and on average contribute more than they consume and the lawbreakers (or as you might prefer ‘unauthorized workers’).

[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.

[Author]

Posts