c****r
发帖数: 969 | 1 ☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Macrosoft (无) 于 h 提到:
法案里有这么一段话:
"For fiscal year 2012, 15 percent of the total number of immigrant visas
made
available under section 203(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) shall be
allotted to immigrants who are natives of a foreign state or dependent area
that was not one of the two states with the largest numbers of natives
obtaining lawful permanent resident status during fiscal year 2010 under
such section 203(b)."
什么是: "... one of the two states with the largest numbers of natives
obtaining lawful permanent resident status during fiscal year 2010... "
??
这是说该法案头三年过渡期,85%,90%,90%的总名额只给两个国家?? 这两个国家是怎么
选出来的?
如果你没被选中,那你整个国家当年的可用名额至多将为5.2K (2012), 3.5K (2013), 3
.5K
(2014).
注意这个指所有(EB1+2+3+4+5)的可用名额.(如果EBC没被选中,那对所有人将是一场灾
难.)
总之,这个HR 3012 不是简单地取消CAP世界统排,其中猫腻很多.是否支持应该慎重.
当然,EBC支持反对与否,作用都不大.真正给力的应该是ROW,以及有见地的老美.老墨,老
菲支
不支持对自己影响不大.真正受影响的是ROW. EBC内部有矛盾,主要是因为一半一半:
EB2C
目前不属于ROW,而EB3C则非常接近于ROW.这一点,决定了内部必然打架.既然如此,大家
何不聚力一起来想出个两全其美的修正案呢.
it is correct that the allocation proposed in HR 3012 is to be made in each
sub-category.
so, it is quite simple, the purpose of HR 3012 is -
EB3I wanted to rob the EB3 ROW, since it could not get any SO each year.
this is the only way to solve the big backlog in EB3I.
The consequence to EBC23:
EB3C, annual quote drops from 2500 to 1500 in year 2012, to 1000 in years
2013 and 2014. after 2014, all EB3's PD will be the same.
EB2C, not much difference if economy is still gloomy in foreseeable years.
if economy is better, EB2C may benefit more. This is because to EB2, HR 3012
is like to allocate the SO in advance (however, the whole # of visas is the
same); it also makes it a rule that the oversubscribed countries (C&I) will
use the visa # earlier than others even when economy is better.
It can be concluded that HR 3012 is only an interim amendment. Even it were
passed, three years later, the law would change again. It is only a solution
to the EBI problems at this tough economy. (No wonder it is IV that heavily
pushes this reform.)
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
ler7 (Gala) 于 (Sat Oct 15 10:03:28 2011, 美东) 提到:
Under section 203 (b) ! 仍然必须按照类別allocation priority, then by this
amendment,说了多遍了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
mitdream (zuzu) 于 (Sat Oct 15 10:49:30 2011, 美东) 提到:
两全其美的东西是不存在的:)
其实说白了,那个法案真通过了,国家间的利益矛盾(china vs indian) 大大缩小,类别
之间的矛盾更大了.那个法案就是成就2类牺牲3类的解决老印的问题.
area
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Macrosoft (走召车欠) 于 (Sat Oct 15 14:01:12 2011, 美东) 提到:
it is correct that the allocation proposed in HR 3012 is to be made in each
sub-category.
so, it is quite simple, the purpose of HR 3012 -
is -
EB3I wanted to rob the EB3 ROW, since it could not get any SO each year.
this is the only way to solve the big backlog in EB3I.
The consequence to EBC23:
EB3C, annual quote drops from 2500 to 1500 in year 2012, to 1000 in years
2013 and 2014. after 2014, all EB3's PD will be the same.
EB2C, not much difference if economy is still gloomy in foreseeable years.
if economy is better, EB2C may benefit more. This is because to EB2, HR 3012
is like to allocate the SO in advance (however, the whole # of visas is the
same); it also makes it a rule that the oversubscribed countries (C&I) will
use the visa # earlier than others even when economy is better.
It can be concluded that HR 3012 is only an interim amendment. Even it were
passed, three years later, the law would change again. It is only a solution
to the EBI problems at this tough economy. (No wonder it is IV that heavily
pushes this reform.)
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Daffi (Daphne) 于 (Sat Oct 15 21:09:19 2011, 美东) 提到:
How so? 这个数据是怎么得出来的？
另外，为什么说H.R.3012是interim amendment？H.R.3012特地还给出了2012-2014年的过渡性安排，明显人家是希望长期有效吧？
The consequence to EBC23:
EB3C, annual quote drops from 2500 to 1500 in year 2012, to 1000 in years
2013 and 2014. after 2014, all EB3's PD will be the same.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Macrosoft (走召车欠) 于 (Sat Oct 15 22:44:49 2011, 美东) 提到:
这里关键还是看怎样理解这句话:
"...one of the two states with the largest numbers of natives obtaining
lawful permanent resident status during fiscal year 2010 under such section
203(b)."
这两个国家到底指谁,
如果从各个类别来定,则EB2里,以2010年为例, 无疑是 C(6505) & I(19961). 而EB3里,
则应是M (77.4K)& C(3676 > P-3651).而烙印则被排除在外?似乎不大可能-IV白忙活了.
如果按全EB类.根据2010年的年报,这两个国家应该指I & C.
至于2011年,是否为C & I 还不知道-年报还未出.
咱可以如此解读,但也可以有其他解读方式.
如果说按DEMAND来在个类别里定这两个国家,则将是 I & P 入选.而EB3C不幸被排除在
外,则2012年只能享有 15% X 40K X 25% = 1.5K 个名额;同理,2013和2014年只有 10%
X 40K X 25% = 1K 个名额.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
noles (mileman) 于 (Sat Oct 15 23:49:48 2011, 美东) 提到:
Then the top two will be always top two as others cannot go over 1.5k and 1k?
section
里,
了.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Macrosoft (走召车欠) 于 (Sat Oct 15 23:52:29 2011, 美东) 提到:
NO,this is only for the first three years.
for 2012, the top two are I & C;
for 2013, it is not clear yet.
...
1k? |
|
