Why didn't Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act, the bill that received the most votes last times, get a vote before or with these other bills? Obviously partly b/c it's not as high priority for the Dems as these other bills, but it's more complex than that. Work is ongoing
A reason these bills saw a vote when they did is b/c they had an April 1 deadline to get a floor vote w/o a hearing. Fairness has the votes to pass on suspension of the rules so there's no worry about that issue with this bill. So no deadline ultimately delayed the vote...
Unlike those other bills, this bill passed the Senate last Congress. That may seem good! Lock for a vote again! The problem is that the House disagreed with the Senate changes, and they are trying to work out the differences now so we don't end up in this back-and-forth again
I don't say this to absolve the House from voting on this important issue and making its position known now, but I want people to understand the logic so they don't give up hope so quickly. Also, if other immigration bills pass, it will help Fairness move along too
FWIW, I do think the House will vote on this bill this year. The timing will ultimately depend on whether they believe they can strike a deal with the Senate or not.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with David Bier

David Bier Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @David_J_Bier

18 Mar
My latest long piece that explains how the Biden admin let the child migrant crisis develop. It chose to:
-keep kids in border cells
-separate kids from extended family
-expel kids w/ parents, causing them to come back
-keep legal crossings closed
cato.org/publications/i…
1. It chose to keep kids in CBP jails in double the numbers of 2019's kids-in-cages disaster in order to maintain social distancing at ORR shelters. This made no sense and led directly to children languishing days-weeks in CBP jail cells. The space was there the whole time
2. It continued expelling kids with parents to Mexico even after it was obvious that it was causing thousands of children to come back alone. This policy is separating far more families than were separated under Trump's family separation policy in 2019.
Read 6 tweets
1 Mar
In the same breath, Sec @AliMayorkas denounces Trump's "cruel" remain in Mexico while telling those wanting to come to "wait in Mexico" or be forced back to wait. Naturally, "wait in Mexico" isn't "cruel" in his opinion c-span.org/video/?509417-…
He continues to cite the CDC's bogus border declaration with a straight face as being about COVID-19. Even though health experts say it is baseless. apnews.com/article/virus-…
He continues to act as if there is no overlap between his returning of families with kids and the number of unaccompanied kids who are coming. It's causing family separation and a major humanitarian crisis.
Read 7 tweets
1 Mar
New GAO report on 287(g): "four of five field offices... said they suspended state and local officers’ 287(g) authorizations for failure to complete training and due to complaints against a designated state and local officer" gao.gov/assets/720/711…
**Two-thirds** of 287(g) local law enforcement agencies had deficiencies or "areas of concern" when ICE sent inspectors to review their 287(g) agreement compliance.
-State and local officials failed to disseminate information, explain, or report complaints.
-failed to meet their annual training requirements to maintain their 287(g) authorization
-were not providing interpreter services during immigration screenings
Read 4 tweets
26 Feb
I suspect I differ with most/many advocates on:
-Naturalization timing & rules
-Noncitizen welfare/entitlement eligibility
-Guest workers
-Discriminatory labor rules
-Min wage
-Prioritizing those already here over those banned abroad
-I believe in a presumptive right to migrate
More or less the order of how strongly I feel about them.
-I don't have strong feelings about naturalization, but I strongly think noncitizens should get far more civil rights/due process/economic liberty immediately, while I lean toward it taking longer to become full citizens
-Welfare. No one is entitled to any taxpayer $. Limiting welfare would increase the economic benefits from immigration, which would increase political support for it. Very little evidence of net harm from restricting welfare. $ can directly & indirectly cause govts to restrict
Read 11 tweets
18 Feb
Most of what I said here based on the outline is true for the bill as well with one important exception: the bill bars all legal immigrants from the path to citizenship except for H-2As and those in "essential critical infrastructure labor or services"
There is a drafting error, but as it is actually written now, only A nonimmigrants (diplomats) are excluded, but that's clearly an error b/c the list after "other than" doesn't make sense. That means Dems will have to double down on this to remove legal immigrants from the bill ImageImage
The fact is that many Hs, Ls, Es, and other nonimmigrants will meet the definition of "‘essential critical infrastructure labor or services" but many will not. It's both better than being totally left out and bizarre to exclude those following the law cisa.gov/publication/gu…
Read 4 tweets
17 Feb
This is probably the best provision on legal immigration in the U.S. Citizenship Act (Biden bill). It would make family-sponsored immigration functional and realistic for the first time in many decades.
At the same time, it effectively increases the family-sponsored cap from the FB floor of 226,000 to the cap of 480,000 by ending the requirement to deduct immediate relatives from the cap.
It also increases the EB cap, though not by nearly as much😡, from 140K to 170K and recaptures the 225K unused EB green cards since 1992. That would help with backlog reduction, but not dramatically. Demand would still far exceed supply
Read 18 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!