SCOOP: House Repubs to Hold Immigration Bill Vote Next Week

[DonViejo]

Source: National Journal

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy gathered some of Washington's biggest tech players in McCarthy's conference room this morning to ask them to back an immigration bill they plan to bring to the floor next week, according to attendees in the room.

The legislation, sponsored by House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, would create a new green card category for foreigners who have received doctorate degrees from U.S. universities in science, technology, engineering and math (the so-called STEM disciplines). Green cards not used by PhDs would be available to those with STEM master's degrees.

The idea that the government should "staple a green card to the diplomas" of foreign students who have earned an advanced degree at a U.S. university has been a favorite talking point of both Democrats and Republicans for years.

Next week's vote gives Republicans the chance to support a fairly non-controversial piece of immigration legislation on an issue where Democrats have tried to claim the high ground.

Congressional Democrats and the White House are urging companies not to support the bill, arguing they've not had enough time to review it, Republicans say.

:::snip:::



Read more: http://influencealley.nationaljournal.com/2012/09/house-repubs-to-hold-immigrati.php

[MichiganVote]

1. No shit. They're actually trying to look like they're working? Wow.

Next thing you know they'll give up a lunch or something.

[DonViejo]

3. They have to make themselves useful,

as well as ornamental.

[MichiganVote]

8. Love the descriptive, "ornamental". So true. LOL!

[JDPriestly]

2. How many American-born and educated PhDs in these fields are jobless?

I do not think this is fair. This should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Let's educate Americans too.

[Angry Dragon]

4. I was thinking the same thing

Americans first

[McCamy Taylor]

6. But colleges make more money on out of state (country) tuition.

[cr8tvlde]

7. Wasn't it referring to a Green Card...right to work?

I didn't read that as elbowing their way to the front of the line. Pretty sure they'd still have to qualify and find their own job. Just means they don't automatically take their degree and go back to their homeland.

[pnwmom]

13. There aren't enough jobs as it is, even for PhD's in many of these fields,

much less people with Master's degrees.

Adding even more competitors isn't going to help any US citizens with these degrees. It will help businesses though, by driving salaries down.

[JDPriestly]

15. This would further discourage Americans from studying, for example, languages

or struggling to excel in math and science. American students place themselves in serious debt to get undergraduate degrees in these fields.

If you get your undergrad degree in many other countries, you have far less debt when you finish it. If an American has a lot of debt at the end of his first four years of college, he has to still pay tuition and living costs in the American economy (more expensive than many other places) and gets further in debt. Even if a student from, say India, has to pay to get a degree in his native country and then come here and pay out of state tuition for his advanced degrees, he is in much better financial shape than an American student studying in the same graduate program at the same university.

The Indian student can, after graduate school, afford to work for less than his American counterpart. That lowers the value of a degree for American students. It makes it difficult for the American student to compete and to enjoy the same standard of living as the Indian immigrant will enjoy in the US>

Say the American graduates with a BA and $60,000 in student loan debt. Then say that the Indian paid only $30,000 for his undergrad education. Now they will both add, say $100,000 for the cost of their graduate education. (These figures are imaginary but represent what real students might face.) You can see how the immigrant could afford to work for a lower salary after finishing graduate school than could the American. You can see how the immigrant would be able to start a family while the American student might never be able to afford a family.

This is objectionable.

[oldsarge54]

18. Why not?

Only those unwilling to move to where the jobs are, or who feel that the salaries offered in those jobs are not enough. The intelligent and well educated do have a bit of a resistance to being serfs.

[cr8tvlde]

5. Republicans..."Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses ...

and if y'all can (or did) dodge the federales long enough to get a Phd, helluva job. Welcome to America.

Am I missing something here?

Have to admit, first I've heard of it. "Have received doctorate degrees", as in a grandfather clause? As opposed to an escorting their Phd. across the border? A quota of Green Cards with a Trickle Down to Master's Clause?

[magic59]

9. How about a bill giving free higher education to all Americans who want it

Pay for it with military cuts. taxing the filthy rich. Businesses cry because there aren't enough educated Americans to fill jobs. I'm guessing its because few Americans can get financial help from their parents which is the GOP's answer to out of control tuition costs.
Wages also play a role. Green cards mean work for half the salary.

[cr8tvlde]

12. Military cuts good, taxes good, but we do have higher education available

to any one who wants it. Now the student loan can be paid back as a percent of salary. Pretty good deal.

[JDPriestly]

16. Lousy deal. Because too many American students get graduate degrees and cannot

get jobs that pay enough to permit them to start a family and pay back their loans. That means that we do not make higher education available to anyone who wants it.

A student who gets an undergrad degree in, say China, will owe far less money when he gets his PhD from an American university than most American students. That is because the Chinese student does not have nearly the debt for undergrad education that the American student has. The student loan system is brutal. You cannot satisfy a student loan debt in bankruptcy court. You are indentured for the length of your life if you take out a student loan.

A lot of Americans are looking at the cost of education and the indentured servant it makes them and asking whether the undergraduate degree is worth the debt. And then of course if you don't have that undergrad degree, you can't dream of the graduate degree.

Also, we do not focus our efforts on educating really bright students to pursue degrees and careers in science and math.

No Child Left Behind is a wonderful goal, but if we are to compete in the world, we need to nurture our best students, to give them advantages that help them excel in math and science. And it's hard to do expect our schools to, on the one hand, educate children who come to school unprepared to learn and on the other hand, expect children who really want to learn to fulfill their promise. Takes a much bigger investment than we are willing too make.

You can't just shove a very gifted child into a classroom of 33 kids and an overwhelmed teacher and expect to get a Nobel prize winner in chemistry out of him or her.

We need to make some choices here. Are we going to create a special, privileged class of PhDs from other countries while we continue deny the children who happen to have been born here an equal opportunity for education and top jobs?

This looks to me like a cop-out, a way to avoid paying the price of denying our gifted children the educational opportunities they need and still provide intellectually capable employees for our corporations. No. Let's find out why American children aren't going into math and science and fix our education system so that they can. And let's fix our student loan system so that it does not indenture young people. Our best and brightest owe so much money that they can't afford to start families. No kid should have to choose between paying back a student loan or getting married and having children. But that is happening -- especially for women.

[cr8tvlde]

20. Right on so many levels...well put.

As a teacher in LA County in the 70's, and this was before Prop 13, there were few special classes, i.e. Gifted, EH/ADHD, Mentally retarded or mentally slow, monolingual Spanish, living out of their cars, qualified special ed kids, no retention policy, etc.

We got so "equal" that the only thing by that time that would work was putting a manageable continuum of student abilities in one class so the teacher could actually teach. But no, they called it "tracking". So, given a classroom from Quartile 1 (barely achieving) to Quartile 4 (gifted), teachers were supposed to "individually instruct" them. The Quartile 1's either took up half the time, or were ignored, based on the teacher and the class breakdown. You can't fairly "grade" a teacher based on the above...it's impossible.

And as to the MGM...Mentally Gifted Minors...that's personal. My son was both MGM and ADHD...and never had any special classes. He barely made it through high school...it was a miracle...and failed in college. There is only so much a parent can do...even one with a teaching credential.

Student loans...I agree. I was lucky with an NDEA loan that was automatically paid back 1/4 for each year I taught in a Title 1 school. But I think that was just for teachers...it's been a long time.

And yes, yet again, the women get hit the hardest and have the hardest decisions. Two of my nieces home schooled all their children...one 4 and the other 5. But they had to forego careers to do it. Kids all score off the charts and are exceptionally well-adjusted and half are now college age...and excelling.

Thanks to Arkansas educational system, another niece scored high and was recommended for a residential 2-year Science and Math school 2-300 miles away in Hot Springs. Today, she's a Pediatrician. There would have been no way for her single mother to provide this. I know this school is a kind of "tracking", but every graduate does well. This was college prep plus.

We should go back to the old days where children had to actually succeed to move forward, and until then, they were given every opportunity to succeed, but did not effectively hold back those ahead of them. Then, we need to get real about Vocational Schools and College Prep classes. Europe has a testing/tracking system, I believe, that works well. There is nothing wrong with being a welder or a home care worker or a ditch digger, for that matter. The doctors and attorneys and CPAs and CEOs and scientists will self select and thrive, if we give them the chance.

I believe that it is our discrimination about and between social roles/vocations and that has been a problem for the Liberals....and I am one. We've tried so hard to be fair and give each child a fair chance...to a fault. It's also unintentionally racial...I lived through the 60's...and they were right. Busing worked for some, but we can't be all things to all children all at the same time. Just one classroom will show that. Frankly, it was easier than providing the money to energize the poorer inner city schools to make up for the property/school tax discrepancy. My ex taught in downtown LA. They did give the teachers Hazard Pay...literally, but the schools were a public shame.

Public/compulsory school will always have it's limits. Usually a child will indicate early on what s/he is qualified for, and at that point head them in that direction.

To be continued...likely for decades.

[qwlauren35]

21. Up to a point...

I agreed with most of what you said until this:

Public/compulsory school will always have it's limits. Usually a child will indicate early on what s/he is qualified for, and at that point head them in that direction.

The key word is "usually". And that's the awkwardness about tracking, which I believe in. There has to be a way for a student to move between tracks easily, getting into a high achiever track at an older age, or getting into a vocational track even if they are "bright", if vocational education is their thing.

The one time I taught, I had a mixed class. There were kids who had flunked math and would always flunk math, and there were bright kids who wanted to excel. I didn't know how to teach to both at the same time. But then, I was a lousy teacher, so that had something to do with it.

Bright kids DESERVE tracking and slower kids DESERVE a slower learning environment. I think teachers know this. I think principals know this. I don't want any kids left behind. But there's got to be a better way than what I saw.

[juajen]

19. But, it isn't retroactive, is it? What about the students who are being taken to the cleaners now?

[defacto7]

10. Let me think of a new and brilliant analogy..??????

...Filtered exhaust from burning wood....

Eureka!

A Screen of Smoke!

[DallasNE]

11. The Devil Is In The Details

Last edited Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:59 AM - Edit history (1)

What's the rush? While I don't yet know enough about this legislation to offer an opinion one way or the other I don't trust that this bill will actually do what the Republicans say it will do. It must be studied. Also, why aren't there hearings on legislation anymore -- rather they are written by lobbyists, rushed to the floor and a vote taken. That makes for bad legislation. Besides, how many people a year will be affected by this bill -- a couple hundred? I would be inclined to slow walk this bill.

[pnwmom]

14. This is just a way for corporations to hire tech employees at lower salaries

due to the increased competition.

Studies have shown that the main reason for what appears to be shortages is that the computerized application process passes over way too many qualified candidates, based on narrow criteria. Too many US citizens are finding themselves without jobs-- they don't need more competition from foreign students.

My nephew, with an excellent GPA and a degree from a very good school, had to spend more than a year before he found a job in Mech Engineering, paying about 2/3 the going rate of the year before.

Except for a handful at the top, it's just as hard for engineering graduates as graduates in many other fields.

[pampango]

17. Luis Gutierrez (Progressive Caucus) supports the concept BUT NOT this Smith (Tea Party Caucus) bill.

Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL-4) issued the following statement reacting to the news that Republicans, including Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (TX), hope to have a vote next week on a bill increasing visas for STEM graduates, those who receive degrees in science, technology, engineering or math at U.S. universities. The Republican proposal, as Rep. Gutierrez understands it, would reduce or eliminate other legal immigration programs in order to increase STEM visas. Rep. Gutierrez is one of the Congress’ most visible supporters of legal immigration and immigration reform and is the Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Task Force on Immigration. Rep. Gutierrez statement:

I would like to negotiate on increasing STEM visas, by as much as 50,000, as well as family visas and I have been talking to Republicans, including Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, to see if we can reach a deal. I hope we can.

I would like to improve the STEM visa program without doing damage to other parts of our legal immigration system. The President has made this a priority and I am prepared to support a clean STEM increase because it will help our economy and create jobs. Republicans are only willing to increase legal immigration for immigrants they want by eliminating legal immigration for immigrants they don’t want.

STEM visas have a lot of merit and we should increase them. I am almost always willing to support legal immigration. Republicans almost always oppose immigration, even when it is legal, which has hurt them.

http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/notitas-de-noticias/details/gutierrez-responds-to-reports-of-stem-visa-bill-moving-in-the-house/18518/

Seems that Smith and the republicans in the House want to appear to be pro-immigration (isn't there an election coming up?) without actually increasing the number of immigrants. That would explain why a member of the Tea Party Caucus would introduce a bill that on the surface appears to be pro-immigration. It is not. It is just republican politics.