Archive for the ‘Immigration Reform’ Category

Will Women Stop Having Sex To Protest Abortion Bans? – Free Speech TV

Women are threatening to stop having sex with men until abortion rights are restored across America. Will women bring men to their knees and save Roe v Wade?

The Thom Hartmann Program covers diverse topics including immigration reform, government intrusion, privacy, foreign policy, and domestic issues. More people listen to or watch the TH program than any other progressive talk show in the world! Join them. #MorefromThom

The Thom Hartmann Program is on Free Speech TV every weekday from 12-3 pm EST.

Missed an episode? Check out Thom Hartmann Playlist on our Youtube channel or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org

@Thom_Hartmann Abortion Bans Abortion Rights America Roe V. Wade The Thom Hartmann Program Women

Read the original:
Will Women Stop Having Sex To Protest Abortion Bans? - Free Speech TV

NPR/Ipsos Poll: Majority of Americans Believe There’s an ‘Invasion’ at the Southwest Border – Immigration Blog

On August 18, NPRs Morning Edition ran the results of a poll the outlet conducted with research outfit Ipsos on respondents perceptions of immigration. More than half (53 percent) believe it is either wholly or partially true that there is an invasion occurring at the Southwest border, while support for immigration is falling and a border wall is becoming more popular. That poll also reveals the toll Bidens Border Fiasco is inflicting on Americans support for immigration.

Invasion. That poll was conducted between July 28 and 29, surveying 1,116 U.S. adults. As Ipsos described its findings, most Americans are buying into the idea of invasion at the southern border, itself a form of spin. When was the last time that you heard a polling outfit talk about how many citizens are buying into the idea of a second Biden presidency, for example?

That said, 28 percent of respondents believe that its completely true that an invasion is occurring at the border, including 51 percent of Republicans, 24 percent of independents, and 12 percent of Democrats.

An additional 25 percent of respondents opined that it was somewhat true that there is an invasion at the U.S.-Mexico line. Most troubling for the administration, that includes 29 percent of Democrats, as well as 25 percent of Republicans and 23 percent of independents.

Nineteen percent of respondents dismissed the idea of an invasion as completely false, with Democrats leading the way at 34 percent, independents next at 18 percent, and Republicans at 8 percent. Twenty-seven percent dont know: 36 percent of independents, 25 percent of Democrats, and 16 percent of Republicans.

The midterm congressional elections are less than 90 days away, so this spells trouble for the president and his fellow partisans, and an opportunity for the GOP (if they were willing to seize it).

Immigration is an issue that stirs Republicans to vote, but it will be the undecided independents who will move the needle in tight races, and they are more than twice as likely to view the chaos at the Southwest border as an invasion than not.

Worse, however, Democrats are overall more likely to entertain the idea of a border invasion than to dismiss it out of hand, by a 41 percent to 34 percent margin. That likely doesnt matter much to progressives or casual Democrats in Vermont or Minnesota, but there is a major Senate race in Arizona and incumbent Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) likely doesnt want to be tied to such impressions about his states border with Mexico.

Declining Support for Immigration. That poll also reveals declining support among Americans for immigration. While 56 percent of respondents agreed that immigrants are an important part of our American identity, thats down from May 2021, when 62 percent took that position, and way down from February 2018, when 75 percent agreed.

Similarly, just over half (51 percent) believed that Dreamers aliens brought to the United States as children and here illegally should be given legal status. Thats a drop from 59 percent in July 2020, and from 65 percent in February 2018. That said, it has been static since May 2021, when again 51 percent were in favor of amnesty for Dreamers.

Support for a wall or fence along the Southwest border is also growing, with 46 percent in the latest Ipsos poll in favor of such barriers, up slightly from 45 percent in May 2021, but a big jump from the 38 percent who agreed in February 2018.

Barbara Jordan Vindicated, Again. NPR cant figure out why Americans responded in this manner, naively stating: It's not clear why those numbers have shifted. For her part, Ipsos Mallory Newall suspects the explanation is tied to broader concerns about inflation and the economy, while the outlet itself notes: There's also a theory that support for immigrants tends to fall when there is a perception of chaos at the southern border.

Gravity is technically a theory, but dont test it out by jumping from an airplane without a parachute. And, with due respect to Newall, if broader concerns about inflation and the economy were driving these numbers, why would support for immigrants be lower now than during the depths of Covid-19 in the summer of 2020?

As I noted recently in my analysis of similar polling numbers, civil-rights icon Barbara Jordan and then-chairwoman of the federal Commission on Immigration Reform warned in 1994 that popular support for immigration would so decline if the government couldnt keep illegal immigration in check:

If we cannot control illegal immigration, we cannot sustain our national interest in legal immigration. Those who come here illegally, and those who hire them, will destroy the credibility of our immigration policies and their implementation. In the course of that, I fear, they will destroy our commitment to immigration itself.

Illegal immigration has never been less controlled than it is right now. In fact, with two months to go in the fiscal year, Border Patrol has already apprehended more illegal migrants at the Southwest border in FY 2022 than in any previous year, already breaking the dubious apprehension record set by Biden in FY 2021.

Why cant NPR just admit these facts? Remember in March 2021 when the Washington Post contended The migrant surge at the U.S. southern border is actually a predictable pattern? Those were the findings of experts, and thus likely more than a theory, according to Morning Edition. Or when Biden himself proclaimed that month:

The truth of the matter is, nothing has changed. As many people came 28 percent increase in children to the border in my administration. Thirty-one percent in 2019 before the pandemic in the Trump administration ... It happens every single solitary year. There is a significant increase in the number of people coming to the border in the winter months of January, February, March it happens every year.

Both of those assertions were demonstrably wrong, but both the experts and the president advanced them. Logic should not take a holiday simply because the left-leaning (and taxpayer-supported) NPR doesnt like the logical results.

Nor does it serve the public that, again, helps fund its operations, or the immigrants themselves. As Jordan herself stated, we disagree ... with those who label our efforts to control illegal immigration as somehow inherently anti-immigrant. Unlawful immigration is unacceptable.

Immigration is good but controlling immigration is essential (and not anti-immigrant), too, if for no other reason than to guarantee that support stays strong by ensuring that immigration is in the national interest. As these numbers suggest, the American people question whether that is still true.

Invasion or Invitation? All of that said, a majority of Americans likely believe theres an invasion at the Southwest border in part because, as noted, the number of illegal entrants is massive by any historical standard, but also because the Biden administration which once promised to bring transparency and truth back to government is hiding its own role in this debacle.

In just 18 months under Biden, Border Patrol agents at the Southwest border have apprehended close to as many illegal entrants as during the full 96 months of the Obama-Biden administration. If current trends continue (and there is no reason to assume they wont), Bidens border total will beat his old boss by the middle of September.

That leaves Americans to wonder why this is happening now. Opinion polls show low support for Bidens handling of the border, suggesting that they blame him for not doing more there, but I doubt they realize that the administration is spurring this humanitarian disaster.

How? Shortly after taking office, Biden ditched nearly all of the successful policies his predecessor implemented to bring the border under control.

That includes the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), better known as Remain in Mexico. Trump implemented MPP in 2019 in response to a then-border emergency at the Southwest border, and it was an effective response.

DHS determined in its October 2019 assessment of the program that MPP was an indispensable tool in addressing the ongoing crisis at the southern border and restoring integrity to the immigration system, particularly as related to alien families.

Indispensable is defined as absolutely necessary and not subject to being set aside or neglected, but Biden has not only eagerly cast the program aside, his DHS secretary has twice tried to kill it, and his administration has fought state efforts successfully to this point to terminate it.

The same is true of CDC orders directing the expulsion of illegal entrants at the border, issued under Title 42 of the U.S. Code in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Even though DHS warns that up to 18,000 migrants will enter the United States daily once Title 42 ends, Biden is fighting a federal district court injunction that requires the administration to keep the CDC orders going.

Why would Biden want to end an indispensable MPP, and terminate Title 42 even if that means that the number of illegal entrants will more than double from already historic highs?

Because, as his DHS secretary explained in May, the Biden administrations objective is not reducing the total number of illegal immigrants coming across the southern border.

Rather, the objective of the Biden administration is to make sure that we have safe, orderly, and legal pathways for individuals to be able to access our legal system, that is, to ensure that every migrant who makes it here can apply for asylum, regardless of the strength of their claim or how long it takes to hear it.

The resulting surge is not an invasion its an invitation to enter illegally that tens of thousands of foreign nationals are accepting every month. The administration is not ineffective in its border efforts; to the contrary, the results at the U.S.-Mexico line speak for themselves.

That said, the people working in the West Wing are smarter and more compassionate than the folks whom they purportedly serve (or at least think they are), so they cant just come out and tell the less-enlightened what they are doing as openly as the secretary did in May.

The problem, as this poll reveals, is that in its efforts to throw the nations Southwest border open to all comers, the Biden administration is helping to stir a backlash that could, and probably will, adversely affect millions of would-be legal immigrants for years to come. Enforcement is not anti-immigrant, but sometimes ironically non-enforcement is.

Visit link:
NPR/Ipsos Poll: Majority of Americans Believe There's an 'Invasion' at the Southwest Border - Immigration Blog

Pat Ryan wins Democratic nomination in New York’s 18th District – Washington Examiner

Ulster County Executive Pat Ryan has won the Democratic primary in New York's 18th Congressional District, setting up a fight with state Assemblyman Colin Schmitt, the Republican nominee.

Ryan beat out two competitors for the Democratic nod in the Hudson Valley district, while Schmitt was unopposed as the Republican nominee. The redrawn 18th District will be a competitive seat and was left open when Democratic Congressional Committee Chairman Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY) decided to run in the new 17th District, which was more favorable to Democrats.

NEW YORK COURT CEMENTS DEMOCRATIC BLOODBATH WITH NEW MAP

Ryan is also on the ballot for the special election in the old 19th District and if he wins would have the advantage of being an incumbent in his bid for a full term representing the 18th District. In that campaign, he focused on upholding abortion access and addressed economic concerns by pledging to go "after price-gougers who are harming customers, guarantee middle-class voters get a tax cut, and make sure billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share."

Schmitt, who has served in the state legislature since 2019, has listed as his top priorities reducing crime, lowering gas prices, immigration reform, and ensuring parental rights in education. He is a sergeant in the Army National Guard.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The new district is rated as a "toss-up" by the Cook Political Report, "lean Republican" by RealClearPolitics, and "lean Democrat" by Inside Elections, signaling uncertainty about the new electorate.

Maloney sparked vicious Democratic infighting by announcing that he would not seek reelection in the new version of his district, instead launching his reelection bid in the safer 17th District, which at the time was represented by Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY). Rather than endure a member-on-member primary, Jones moved into the open 10th District, which covers parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Follow this link:
Pat Ryan wins Democratic nomination in New York's 18th District - Washington Examiner

Clay Jenkinson returns to Vail Symposium for two special events discussing immigration and a controversial Founding Father – Vail Daily

Clay Jenkinson humanities scholar, author and social commentator who has devoted most of his professional career to public humanities programs and is considered one of the most entertaining public speakers in the United States; hes also one of the most popular guests that Vali Symposium has hosted. Next week, he returns for two special programs. On Wednesday, Aug. 24, at Vail Interfaith Chapel, hell moderate the second in a new series called Conversations on Controversial Issues: Moderated by Clay Jenkinson with a panel of four experts discussing U.S. Immigration. On Thursday, Aug. 25, he returns to the stage at Edwards Interfaith Chapel as Thomas Jefferson, channeling the Founding Father and third president of the United States for a stirring performance before answering audience questions.

Clay Jenkinson is one of our most popular guests and were thrilled to welcome him back to the valley for two special programs, said Kris Sabel, executive director of Vail Symposium. The first program gathers an incredible panel of experts to discuss a controversial topic U.S. immigration. Then we go back in time for a special fundraising performance as Clay becomes Thomas Jefferson. This is a program that we presented last year but had to limit numbers due to COVID. We hope that anyone who missed out last year will attend; its worth seeing a second time as well!

U.S. immigration policy is center to extensive debate yet stands in stalemate. Current policy is not serving and has not served for decades, for either the United States or immigrants. How did we get to where we are today? How could we address the 11 million undocumented immigrants that live in the U.S. currently? What is needed to address the United States southern border immigration issues? How might the legal visa process become more streamlined/efficient? How do we move to both a civil and humane approach to immigration reform? How do we discuss politics, security, and the economy with a new immigration mindset?

On Wednesday, Aug. 24, guest presenters Violeta Chapin, University of Colorado Law School; Jorge Loweree from the American Immigration Council; Alex Nowrasteh, director of economic and social policy studies at Cato Institute and Jessica Vaughan, director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, join Jenkinson as they examine immigration in American life.

Then, on Thursday, Aug. 25, Jefferson Hour creator Jenkinson channels Thomas Jefferson, arguably one of the most accomplished Americans to have ever lived. Five decades of public service included serving as president of the new United States, vice president, secretary of state, diplomatic minister, congressman, governor of Virginia and still others. He was a lawyer, architect, writer, farmer, gentleman and scientist. Yet Jefferson was also a man of contradictions: He was a champion of freedom and democracy while also owning slaves. For this program, Jenkinson will deliver a stirring performance before answering audience questions.

About the speakers

Clay Jenkinson is a humanities scholar, author and social commentator. His performances are always humorous, educational, thought provoking and enlightening, while maintaining a steady focus on ideas. Jenkinson is widely regarded as one of the most articulate public speakers in the country and he brings a humanities perspective partly learned as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University to everything he does. Jenkinson is also one of the nations leading interpreters of Thomas Jefferson. He has lectured about and portrayed Jefferson in 49 states over a period of over 20 years. Clay also portrays Theodore Roosevelt, Meriwether Lewis, John Wesley Powell and Robert Oppenheimer.

Professor Violeta Chapin joined the Colorado Law faculty after serving for seven years as a trial attorney with the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS). Professor Chapin has represented both adult and juvenile indigent defendants charged with serious felony offenses at all stages of trial.

Jorge Loweree is the Managing Director of Programs and Strategy at the American Immigration Council where he oversees the Councils legal, policy, state and local, immigration justice campaign work. He previously served as Policy Director from 2019-2022 directing the Councils administrative and legislative advocacy efforts to provide lawmakers, policymakers, advocates, and the general public with accurate and timely information about the role of immigrants in the United States.

Alex Nowrasteh is the director of economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute. His popular publications have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Washington Post and most other major publications in the United States.

Jessica M. Vaughan is Director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, DC-based research institute that examines the impact of immigration on American society and educates policymakers and opinion leaders on immigration issues. Her area of expertise is immigration policy and operations, covering topics such as visa programs, immigration benefits and immigration enforcement. Vaughan is an expert on immigration enforcement and public safety, having directed a Department of Justice-funded project on the use of immigration law enforcement in transnational gang suppression.

View post:
Clay Jenkinson returns to Vail Symposium for two special events discussing immigration and a controversial Founding Father - Vail Daily

What Happened To The Bills On Employment-Based Immigration? – Forbes

The U.S. Capitol. The new Congress began with hope for a lasting solution to the green card backlog ... [+] problem for employment-based immigrants but may soon end with no solution at all. (Photo by Cynthia Johnson/Getty Images)

The new Congress began with hope for a lasting solution to the employment-based green card backlog problem but may soon end with no solution at all. What happened?

Economists have found foreign-born scientists and engineers are vital to the competitiveness of companies in the United States and the American economy. The ability to recruit global talent is a key factor that has contributed to U.S. leadership in science and research, according to the MIT Science and Policy Review. This talent has been vital for the development of U.S. science and responsible for numerous discoveries and innovations that have improved quality of life. At U.S. universities, international students account for 74% of the full-time graduate students in electrical engineering and 72% in computer and information sciences as well as 50% to 70% in fields that include mathematics and materials sciences.

Due to a low annual limit on employment-based green cards and a per-country limit of 7% from a single country, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates that more than 2 million people from India will be waiting in the U.S. employment-based immigrant backlog by 2030. Many foreign-born scientists and engineers will potentially wait decades before gaining permanent residence and a chance to become U.S. citizens.

The impact on competitiveness is significant. At U.S. universities, Indian graduate students in science and engineering declined by nearly 40%, between 2016 and 2019, according to a National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) analysis. During the same period (2016 to 2019), Indian students attending Canadian colleges and universities increased 182%. The difference in enrollment trends is largely a result of it being much easier for Indian students to work after graduation and become permanent residents in Canada compared to the United States. Chinese student interest in attending U.S. universities has also declined.

In February 2021, the U.S. Citizenship Act (H.R. 1177), developed by the Biden administration, was introduced in Congress. The bill contained many immigration provisions and would have put an end to the employment-based immigrant backlog within 10 years. It included a higher annual green card limit, eliminated the per-country limit, provided permanent residence for those waiting with an approved immigrant petition for 10 years and excluded dependents from being counted against the annual limit. (See here.) It also would have exempted individuals with Ph.D.s in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) fields from numerical limits.

Due to GOP opposition and the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the Senate, the U.S. Citizenship Act turned out to be a messaging or placeholder bill that did not move in Congress. To obtain green card relief, a different measure would need to become law.

The best opportunity for employment-based immigration looked like legislation aimed at enhancing U.S. competitiveness in semiconductors. On February 4, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the America COMPETES Act 222 to 210. The bill contained several immigration provisions but garnered only one Republican vote. In June 2021, the Senate passed a similar bill without any immigration measures.

The House bill created an exemption from annual green card limits and backlogs for foreign nationals with a Ph.D. in STEM fields and those with a masters degree in a critical industry, such as semiconductors. The bill also included Rep. Zoe Lofgrens (D-CA) LIKE Act to give foreign-born entrepreneurs an opportunity to earn lawful permanent residence. A recent NFAP report on immigrant founders of billion-dollar companies concluded many innovations only become useful through entrepreneurship.

During a House-Senate conference committee, Rep. Lofgren urged the Senate to accept the Houses immigrant measures. The Biden administration, businesses and universities wanted to see, at minimum, the exemption for individuals with Ph.D.s in STEM fields become law.

The exemption for STEM Ph.D.s was likely doomed the moment Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) appointed Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) to the bills conference committee. McConnell gave Grassley, the ranking Republican member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, a veto, in effect, over any immigration provision. Over several months, he exercised that veto and no group of Senate Republicans stepped forward to prevent it.

In June 2022, Grassley asserted he was against including immigration measures in a non-immigration bill. Critics pointed out Grassley had no problem, indeed lauded, including a restrictive measure on EB-5 immigrant investor visas in a non-immigration bill only a few months earlier (March 2022). It appeared evident that Grassley opposed any liberalization of U.S. immigration laws, no matter how beneficial economists and others believed a specific provision would be for the country and claimed a procedural reason.

Senate Democrats approached Grassley with iterations of the Ph.D. STEM provision, but he refused to budge, according to sources. He did not vote for final passage or the motion to proceed to the bill on the Senate floor (a 64 to 34 vote) but got his way on the legislation. The final bill included no measures to exempt Ph.D.s in STEM fields from green card limits or any other significant positive immigration provision. (The legislation was H.R. 4346, renamed the CHIPS Act of 2022.)

A letter (July 27, 2022) to House and Senate leaders from the chief human resource officers of leading semiconductor companies called on Congress to admit more high-tech talent: We are writing to you about an underappreciated but vital issue for both our economy and national security interest: the need for more talented and highly skilled individuals to fill the immediate labor demand of the technology industry. Workers with advanced education and knowledge in cutting-edge technical areas, specifically in science, technology and engineering (STEM) fields, are the fuel that will propel our economy and country into the next industrial and technological era.

Another legislative vehicle, a budget reconciliation bill, became law without any measures to relieve the green card backlog or make other positive immigration changes. For months, Democrats in Congress talked about using budget reconciliation to enact immigration reforms. The reconciliation process overcomes Senate filibuster rules by allowing passage with a simple majority. However, under Congressional rules, reconciliation can only include certain measures.

The Senate parliamentarian advised in late 2021 that including provisions to legalize undocumented immigrants in a budget reconciliation bill would violate Senate rules. Senate Democrats also gave green card backlog reduction language informally to the Senate parliamentarian, but she did not provide a ruling on it, according to a Congressional source.

Immigration reform supporters pointed to language recapturing unused employment-based green cards that became law in budget reconciliation in 2005. However, the Senate parliamentarian said, according to the Congressional source, that the earlier parliamentarian never approved that language and it was allowed because nobody at the time raised a budget point of order since the provision was supported on a bipartisan basis.

In that context, it becomes clearer why, at different times, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) threw cold water on the idea of including green card provisions in reconciliation. A Senate parliamentarians advice can be overcome by a vote but Sen. Durbin indicated getting all Senate Democrats to vote against a parliamentarians ruling on immigration was not realistic.

The issue appeared to be moot until Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) reached a deal with other Democrats and the reconciliation bill became the Inflation Reduction Act. The bill passed Congress without any green card measures. Senate Democrats voted against all amendments to the legislation, including those that would have restricted access to asylum via the public health measure Title 42.

Based on Sen. Durbins earlier statement, it seems unlikely Sen. Manchin or Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) would have supported including green card recapture in the bill if, as appears probable, the current Senate parliamentarian advised the measure would violate budget reconciliation rules. Note also Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) adopted a strategy of zeroing out spending within the Judiciary Committees jurisdiction to force Republican amendments on immigration to meet a 60-vote margin for germaneness. (Title 42 did not fall within the Judiciary Committees jurisdiction.)

Another legislative vehicle emerged due to international events. After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, a weak point for the Putin regime was its ability (or inability) to keep high-skilled technical talent living and working inside Russia. Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell recommended using legislation to Drain Putins Brains.

In a letter to the House on April 28, 2022, the Biden administration provided legislative language on Russian scientists and engineers as part of the FY 2022 emergency supplemental funding for Ukraine. The language would have allowed Russians with a masters or doctoral degree in a STEM field to obtain permanent residence (a green card) without a backlog or employer sponsorship.

The emergency supplemental for Ukraine passed Congress without any non-spending measures, including the provision for Russian scientists and engineers.

In July 2022, hopes were high the FY 2023 defense authorization bill would include an amendment on green cards for individuals with Ph.D.s in science and engineering. In what has become a familiar story, it was not to be.

According to a Congressional source, the House Rules Committee did not rule the amendment in order because the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said the provision would cost $1 billion over 10 years, as reported in July. To address the issue and offset the cost, a $7,500 fee was added for the individuals who received permanent residence under the provision. However, the House Ways and Means Committee said the fee could not be included because it amounted to a tax and, therefore, violated Clause 5(a) of Rule 21 of the rules of the House of Representatives.

It is unclear how CBO determined the $1 billion cost and how advocates can address the issues raised by the CBO score in the future. There is no word about adding the provision to the Senates defense bill.

A few bills related to employment-based immigration remain in play in Congress. On June 7, 2022, H.R. 3648, the Eagle Act of 2022, was reported out of the House Judiciary Committee on a 22-14 vote. The bill would eliminate the per-country limit for employment-based immigrants, with a phase-in period. It also would add new restrictions and requirements on H-1B visas, raise the per-country limit on family applicants from 7% to 15%, provide protection to children from aging out on a parents application and allow for adjustment of status within two years of an approved employment petition. Individuals would receive work authorization and advance parole for travel purposes.

In the House defense authorization bill, an amendment was included by Rep. Deborah K. Ross (D-NC) and Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) to protect dependent children of green card applicants and employment-based nonimmigrants who face deportation when they age out of dependent status, reported Roll Call. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced the Americas Children Act, the Senate companion. The measure in the defense authorization bill would need to pass in the Senate to become law. (See here for more on this issue.) Sen. Grassley said in an August 2022 town hall meeting the measure could be included in an omnibus or the defense bill if we can get bipartisan agreement, which is positive but short of a personal commitment to support the legislation.

In June 2022, in the House Appropriations Committee, an amendment was added to the House Homeland Security spending bill to provide relief for individuals waiting for green cards in the family and employment-based backlog. The amendment authorizes using unused green cards going back to 1992, per Bloomberg Government. The language of the amendment (see here) . . . means tens of thousands of individuals waiting in the employment-based immigrant backlog would benefit, as well as individuals waiting in family backlogs, as reported in this Forbes article in June.

The Senate Appropriations bill for FY 2023 for Homeland Security also contains green card measures for those waiting in family and employment backlogs. The House and Senate green card measures face significant obstacles since non-spending provisions face a high hurdle to remain in a spending bill.

House and Senate Democrats and the Biden administration have supported or proposed several bills and measures to reduce the employment-based green card backlogs and exempt highly skilled foreign nationals from immigration quotas. Senate Democrats did not sacrifice a chance to pass the CHIPS Act after Sen. Grassley opposed including a STEM Ph.D. exemption.

Republicans in Congress in a position to influence legislative outcomes are now opposing any positive measures on legal immigration. As one executive of a leading technology company told me, If there are people in Congress who arent going to support more green cards for Ph.D.s in STEM fields, what will they support?

Read the original:
What Happened To The Bills On Employment-Based Immigration? - Forbes