E visa's draft non immigrant to immigrant visa

[Susie]

Hi

I think this is one of the 9 thread's that have gone missing . I will try and remember my comments and post back later. This will be a good thread to monitor any progress of the act. Heather Martin is the Senator of New mexico can anyone post a link to her web site here so we can monitor updates, thanks






We now have the draft proposal of what will go forward to try and get in with all the other immigration amendments tabled on March 22nd. I have bracketed explanations by the author. It is expected to hit the floor in the next few weeks and as soon as I have an actual time scale I will post again.

The legislation would allow, per fiscal year, 3,000 people on E-2 Visas to change their status to permanent resident if they meet certain criteria. (We set a cap of 3,000 because it will comply with language already in the Immigration and Nationality Act. If we try to make it a different number it complicates things and we would have to amend other sections of the U.S. code)

To change their status applicants would have to meet the following criteria:

Be present in the United States on an E-2 Visa for 5 years -

Make significant contributions to the U.S. Economy by:

Investing $200,000 in an enterprise - this would be the required amount they must invest to start up their business.

Generated (on average over 5 years) $60,000 in revenues and for every child they have they an additional $10,000 - i.e. if you have two children then you must generate on average over 5 years $80,000 ($60,000 plus $20,000 for having two children)

Employ at least 2 individuals when the business starts up and by the end of the third year employ at least 5 individuals. (I chose provisions like this because when a small business starts up it takes a while to get off the ground so I thought employing 2 people was middle, realistic ground for these folks to meet. I included the part of employing a minimum of 5 employees by the end of the third year because it is also a realistic goal to achieve. Furthermore, it will ensure that these folks are investing into the economy with a minimum of 5 employees for at least 1 year during their 5 year period before allowing them to change their immigrant status)

Peter

[InnVic]

Susie last time I looked there was no mention on her website.
http://wilson.house.gov/
The guy thats drafting the bill is called Josh J Baca. Do you think we should contact him directly to discuss the bill. I have said before it seems unfair that if this is passed there will be a two tier E2 visa creating an E2 underclass - this is divisive and not I believe in the spirit of treaty co-operation.

[chris]

Personally, I think this site should amongst it's members address this proposed motion, which in it's present form is flawed, reinvents the wheel and is IMHO not helpful to the E2 cause, other than it attempts to make some headway toward change.
If I may I'd like to offer the following observations for comment within this site and membership:
1. Ignore this motion altogether and push for true Treaty parity for E2 Visa holders in the USA that exists for US E2 equivalent visa in the UK. For those not aware of this, the UK regs allows Yanks to apply for LPR within 3 years of entering the UK and apply for UK citizenship after a further 12 months. So within 4 years of entering the UK an American on the E2 equivalent can be a bona fide Brit with all the privileges that go with it. Compare that to our lot.
The US Embassy will trot out that the UK requires a higher sterling investment, but that can be argued simply by virtue of the dollar/sterling costs of living difference.
2. An existing arrangemnt exists for L Non-immigrant Visa to convert to GC. Simply apply that arrangemnt with monor changes to the E Visa. Compare business activities in the US (ignore what happens in the UK with the L) and both activities at the US end are the same.
3. If we are to chew on the proposed motion. E2 Visa for 5 years should be replaced by E2 status for 5 years. The kid quotient and the sliding invetsment scale that went with it should be deleted as it has no relevance to the situation. The term 'Revenues' should be made clear. It is muddy at present. The employee numbers are clearly numbers plucked out of thin air and do not reflect any business sense whatsoever on the part of the individual who came up with the equation. It should alwasy be remembered that businesses are in business to make profit, not job creation. That is the function of government. Job creation in a business context is a by-product of profit and growth. Create jobs before profit and you have financial disaster.
The investment figure is again something has plucked from thin air or the back of a cereal box. It should relate to the individual business and its business/profit generating potential.
Open for comments. If we are to do something we need to do something quickly.

[DebbieM]

Excellent post Chris.

The issue will be getting someone to grasp the nettle, but count me in on ANYTHING I can do to help.

Deb

[InnVic]

Great post and I'm with you all the way Chris. We need to get someone to contact Josh Baca at Helen Wilsons office, preferably representing us as a group. Pete and Bernadette are out of the way now so someone should take up the gauntlet.

[chris]

If folks can critique the proposed motion and throw in their 5 cents, I am willing to put pen to paper. But we need to decide as a group, what we are putting forward? Taking my post is it 1, 2 or 3?
Where's Peter Gold when you need him?

[Susie]

Hi Chris

I am willing to help in anyone who is giving their time freely for immigration reforms for the benefit of others but my time at present is very limited and wish to focus on expatsvoice aims for the time being.

It is hoped that the previous thread where there were many comments will be restored but if not then lets go forward from here. We do need constructive comments on any flaw that we might be a possible problem.

From memory I did praise Peter for all his hard work and did not say any negative comments about this draft leglislation. I have spoken to many senators and congressmen's offices including Heather Wilson office (only about expatsvoice aims) in the hope she would be willing to assist us in our aims. Her aid was very helpful and promised to get back to me so I already have a contact in her office.

As you know our site is more about compassion, both a compassionate visa on a case by case basis and an amendment to either The Dream Act or Child Status Protection Act. As not all children are protected from aging out and E dependants are left out of both acts.


I did not discuss anything about proposed legislation other than to thank them for their efforts which I support. The main reason to contact Heather as shee is a woman and who understand the need for compassion. I did explain to the senators office that both the Dream act and CSPA Act are badly written and needs a leglaslative fix. As for the Dream act the criteria states that the child must have entered the USA before their 16th birthday and complete 5 years of education in US schools.

Ref Dream Act:

We also spoke about there will be cases where 2 out of 3 children (of same parents) will be protected but the other child may have arrived in the USA at 16 years and one month, so this child will still be an illegal and have to depart the US. This will tear families apart, which goes against family values and family reunification. I also said what happens if one of the three children has downs syndrom or learning difficulties.

Ref CSPA

Again, we spoke about the fact that not all children are protected by this act and goes against the true spirt and intension this law was introduced for. One sentence in the CSPA say it all as far as I can see which states # The CSPA should be interpred expansively # which it is not


E 2 children

I explained that E children (as any child coming to the USA) do not have a choice as to where their parents are bring them to live. There is currently a pathway to green card for L and H1B visa children dependants but not the E dependant children.


It is far easier to amend an existing act rather than write a new law and therefore stand more chance of getting the most important amendment through.

So our aim is to get an amendment to the Dream Act or CSPA to protect ALL children from aging out and have a pathway to a green card. IMHO a child is still a child untill their 21st birthday and should all be treated they same.

Compassionate Visa

We also talked about anyone on E/L/H1B as to what happends when the main visa holder dies. As you know the day this happens the spouce visa is cancelled. The spouce can inherit the business and pay tax on that inheritance but the spouce cannot inherit their visa status.

If the main visa holder is in change of status eg., L visa to green card, and petitioner passes away whist this process is being adjudicated then the case is cancelled. At present to my knowledge if the petition is a USC and dies as a direct result of conflict/terrorisum then the case can continue

There are many other reasons why, we all have a need for a compassionate visa. Landlocked in the USA, family in home coutry, diagnosed terminally ill, in a car crash etc , etc.,

The same goes for someone living in the USA, they become terminal, or in a serious car crash, well if the relatives are from a visa waiver country and wish to get a B visa so they can come and nurse family, they will be denied as this would show immigrant intent to the consular officer

Many other senarios to many to speak in details here but gives an idea of the great need for a compassionate visa.

[Munish]

Chris here is my take on the options you presented.

1. Pushing for "true Treaty parity for E2 visa holders in the USA"

I think there is one problem with the reciprocity argument. Different countries that implement that E2 Treaty will have different standards and so just because reciprocity may be reached with the UK, what about the other countries that are E2 Treaty signatories. Each will have their own standards. This means either there will have to be different standards depending on nationality, or we would have to convince the Government to choose the UK standards over other countries on which to base reform. I am skeptical about how this will be received, unless I misunderstood the proposal.

2. An existing arrangemnt exists for L Non-immigrant Visa to convert to GC

This makes the most logical argument, as although the means are different, the end is the same in that both are business related visas and so should get similar benefits. However, I can see this route being manipulated to make it sound like if we allow this, the foreigners will simply use the E visa as a disguise for permanent residency.

3. If we are to chew on the proposed motion

This is my preferred option as I see this making headway. Americans need to benchmark results, and if you can make sound like investors are contributing significantly to the economy for a sustained period, that deserves reward. It's a more compromise approach, but is more palatable to the law makers.

Looking at each proposal in turn:

a. "E2 Visa for 5 years should be replaced by E2 status for 5 years. The kid quotient and the sliding invetsment scale that went with it should be deleted as it has no relevance to the situation".

Makes sense.

b. "The term 'Revenues' should be made clear. It is muddy at present. The employee numbers are clearly numbers plucked out of thin air and do not reflect any business sense whatsoever on the part of the individual who came up with the equation."

We should recommend an approach and, personally, I think revenues should be given the same meaning as turnover without deductions. However, other may disagree and may prefer it to relate to a sustainable profit (because a high turnover could still be running at a loss).

c. "It should alwasy be remembered that businesses are in business to make profit, not job creation. That is the function of government. Job creation in a business context is a by-product of profit and growth. Create jobs before profit and you have financial disaster."

I agree, but is that how lawmakers would see it. I think the proposal should be pegged to financial performance, although the end result may be a requirement to employ 1 or 2 people. The reason is the investment visa requires 10 employees and that would be the justification for requiring employees in this context too, hence a compromise may eventually be required.

d. "The investment figure is again something has plucked from thin air or the back of a cereal box. It should relate to the individual business and its business/profit generating potential."

How do we measure "profit generating potential"? It is too subjective. Again the investment visa comes to mind where the investment required is $500K or $1million, which itself has been plucked out of a cereal box but is the system in use. However, I think it would be easier to pass something analagous to a system that already exists otherwise reform proposals may be rejected as too complicated, unless the solution or proposal provided is convincing (and I am sure someone will come up with a great suggestion so I can see myself being convinced otherwise).

Food for thought.

[britcan]

Not just British reciprocity but also Canadian thank you, as you can enter Canada on an investors visa at quite a low level and have permanent status straight away, then apply for Canadian citizenship after 3 years.

Personally, I think this site should amongst it's members address this proposed motion, which in it's present form is flawed, reinvents the wheel and is IMHO not helpful to the E2 cause, other than it attempts to make some headway toward change.
If I may I'd like to offer the following observations for comment within this site and membership:
1. Ignore this motion altogether and push for true Treaty parity for E2 Visa holders in the USA that exists for US E2 equivalent visa in the UK. For those not aware of this, the UK regs allows Yanks to apply for LPR within 3 years of entering the UK and apply for UK citizenship after a further 12 months. So within 4 years of entering the UK an American on the E2 equivalent can be a bona fide Brit with all the privileges that go with it. Compare that to our lot.
The US Embassy will trot out that the UK requires a higher sterling investment, but that can be argued simply by virtue of the dollar/sterling costs of living difference.
2. An existing arrangemnt exists for L Non-immigrant Visa to convert to GC. Simply apply that arrangemnt with monor changes to the E Visa. Compare business activities in the US (ignore what happens in the UK with the L) and both activities at the US end are the same.
3. If we are to chew on the proposed motion. E2 Visa for 5 years should be replaced by E2 status for 5 years. The kid quotient and the sliding invetsment scale that went with it should be deleted as it has no relevance to the situation. The term 'Revenues' should be made clear. It is muddy at present. The employee numbers are clearly numbers plucked out of thin air and do not reflect any business sense whatsoever on the part of the individual who came up with the equation. It should alwasy be remembered that businesses are in business to make profit, not job creation. That is the function of government. Job creation in a business context is a by-product of profit and growth. Create jobs before profit and you have financial disaster.
The investment figure is again something has plucked from thin air or the back of a cereal box. It should relate to the individual business and its business/profit generating potential.
Open for comments. If we are to do something we need to do something quickly.

[britcan]

My husband says the following;

" I think that everybodys missing the point. Crossing the border from the south is rewarded with a GC and USC. Coming into the country legally, we are treated less than an illegal immigrants. This balance needs to be redressed immediately. We need to be put onto a path to USC and be treated just as fairly as the flood of illegal immigrants who are crossing the southern border of the USA every day."

[Munish]

My husband says the following;

" I think that everybodys missing the point. Crossing the border from the south is rewarded with a GC and USC. Coming into the country legally, we are treated less than an illegal immigrants. This balance needs to be redressed immediately. We need to be put onto a path to USC and be treated just as fairly as the flood of illegal immigrants who are crossing the southern border of the USA every day."

That really is the most powerful argument of all!

[Munish]

Not just British reciprocity but also Canadian thank you, as you can enter Canada on an investors visa at quite a low level and have permanent status straight away, then apply for Canadian citizenship after 3 years.

This exactly highlights what I was saying in relation to proposal 1. Either varying standards are adopted depending on nationality, or determine which standards should apply to all.

[chris]

From the responses so far, it's clear we have differing perspectives, not just on E2 but on other elements with immigration reform.
I take Susies point about face to face meets, but that can be easier said than done if people are physically not here in central florida and it's unfair to disregard their views and input.
As far as other elements of immigration reform, then I think what might work better is for Susie to act as 'pointman' and assemble working teams for each element. That way members can ally or input into the element they feel most comfortable with. It's one thing to have feelings for something, another to have have the knowledge to input effectively, not that anyone should be excluded if they want to join in.
If we assembled 'project teams' then like ants many can work on several tasks at once and time is key.
Thoughts anyone.

[Munish]

I think working teams is a great idea. If people are not in Florida, we can still contribute with written responses. May be could have some kind of agenda before any meeting available for those who wish to respond in writing and those views can be considered by the working teams present in Florida. Responses to results following these meetings can be considered too.

[britcan]

Well we are moving to New England soon, so maybe we can be of help from the East coast!

[Kriz1]

Great post and I'm with you all the way Chris. We need to get someone to contact Josh Baca at Helen Wilsons office, preferably representing us as a group. Pete and Bernadette are out of the way now so someone should take up the gauntlet.

I'd just like to say that they are not out the way on this matter...I think this was drafted in this way for a reason....and if to much is asked for it could be lost...just my 2 cents...

[Martyn]

Too many chiefs and not enough indians immediately springs to mind...be VERY careful

[Susie]

Hi All

I went off topic in my post number #7 sorry I should know better, just getting my views in the open however I think we should purely keep this thread only related to the proposed leglislation for E non immigrant to immigrant visa. I will copy and paste part of my post to a new thread that relates to expatsvoice main aims.




Chris,

Have an idea, maybe we could set a date, time etc., for any who wish to discuss this subject to all meet in the chat room, it may work or get very busy or should we just post ideas here for a while then arrange a meet up in the chat room. That way everyone who wishes to take part or help can. If you all think this is a good idea then we shall need to bear in mind there are members in the uk who may wish to partake and therefore would have to be around 5pm USA time or 10pm UK time



Hi Martyn,

Sorry, do not understand your comment, can you advise if you think the proposed legislation is fine as it is or would you see any potential problems with the way it is written. It is important that this thread is purely to discuss the progress, problems or ways to improve

If you think there could be any pitfalls please share your views also feel free to suggest a few options, thanks

[Kriz1]

I think its just worth remembering that there are other forums out there who have been lobbying for a while on this subject...mostly they are Asian and many in them have degrees and tons of experience and they want the E2 to go more along the line of the H1B... with a low cap per country per year ...this is not just a Brit thing we must remember that....I have looked for the Asian links but I've not been in those forums for over a year....and there are now tons of them out there...and my bookmarks were on my other PC...

[chris]

Kriz,
I take your point about other countries, but there comes a point when you have to look after number 1. If we don't work towards improving our situation here in the the USA, no-one else is going to do it for us.
Personally I have no wish to get involved with what other forums may or may not be doing. It is their business, not ours.
I would have thought after last weeks problems, we work on the basis of what goes on in Expats Voice, stays in Expats Voice.

[chris]

Martyn.
Your comment about 2 many Chiefs, not enough Indians. Don't understand that?
The posts have been about creating 'teams'. That's a participative term and equates to equality amongst the team. It was meant as a way to address the various immigration issues that were highlighted. One person cannot do everything. So you have to decide whether you focus on one issue and ignore the others or you handle multiple issues with a focus team approach.

[DebbieM]

I agree with Chris about looking after number 1, after all isn't that what the Asians on the other forums seem to be doing? They don't seem to have considered anyone other than themselves when lobbying for change.

I think the changes that we all would like to see is some parity between L1, E-2 and the reciprocal agreement the US has with the UK. Not radical changes just fairness.

I too don't understand Martyn's comments. Unless someone is prepared to move this forward we will still be in the same situation in 12 months time, working parties focussing on different aspects is IMO the best way to go. No one has the time to devote 100% to this and after all we all want to benefit so why shouldn't we all do our bit.

Debs

[Kriz1]

Kriz,
I take your point about other countries, but there comes a point when you have to look after number 1. If we don't work towards improving our situation here in the the USA, no-one else is going to do it for us.
Personally I have no wish to get involved with what other forums may or may not be doing. It is their business, not ours.
I would have thought after last weeks problems, we work on the basis of what goes on in Expats Voice, stays in Expats Voice.

But from how I see it it does involve everyone on an E2 not matter what country they come from...??..if they have been lobbying hard for a while...what they are putting forward could already be what is being looked at...and that could be why the wording on the draft was done as it was...this is not about number 1...or I don't think so anyway...if I did I would not be here...

[britcan]

Please don't forget though that you also have a British Canadian in your midst, and Canadians are notorious about not doing anything( I am not in that group) , so please include us a Canadians!!!!!!!!!



I agree with Chris about looking after number 1, after all isn't that what the Asians on the other forums seem to be doing? They don't seem to have considered anyone other than themselves when lobbying for change.

I think the changes that we all would like to see is some parity between L1, E-2 and the reciprocal agreement the US has with the UK. Not radical changes just fairness.

I too don't understand Martyn's comments. Unless someone is prepared to move this forward we will still be in the same situation in 12 months time, working parties focussing on different aspects is IMO the best way to go. No one has the time to devote 100% to this and after all we all want to benefit so why shouldn't we all do our bit.

Debs

[Munish]

Even if others are dealing with this and lobbying Congress or Senators does not mean we can't, and beyond looking after number 1.

The more they get lobbied from different sources, the more likely something is to going to be inserted into the bill. Should never sit back and rely solely on others' efforts.

[optom3]

:) Hi at the risk of offending everyone take a look at my post on the florida forum.In my arrogant opinion I believe the way forward is one cohesive force.I feel it is a case of united we stand ,divided we fall.I am too eye and finger sore to rewrite everything I posted on the other forum but I am sure plenty who read this forum also post on the other.I do not believe that several splinter groups is the way forward.Why should congress listen when we can't even agree amongst ourselves?The other problem is that if we fail to move quickly,then this window of opportunity will be lost to us.It is a simply enormous task to try and change a countries immigration policy.particularly when it is not our country.I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to achieve back in the U.K let alone here.So shoot me down in flames but I still think one cohesive effort which may not cover everyones needs is the way forward.insults and bickering are for the playground not for a move to try and rewrite a countries legislation.
We are trying to prove are we not that we are intelligent business owners who are going to have a positive economic impact on the communities in which we live and therefore are deserving of some recognition for that in the form of a green card.Not a pack of whining bickering kids arguing in the playground.If as some believe the beings in power do read these forums,then what hope!!!Now shoot me!!!

[fatbrit]

That really is the most powerful argument of all!

Forgive me, but this is the most unconvincing argument of all for anybody who has grown legs long enough to climb over the playpen's sides.

Argue on the relevant stuff: providing employment, investment, similar treatment for US treaty traders in home countries, loss of US education investment, etcetera.

Saying we should have it because you might have to give it to them is totally ridiculous outside the confines of the kindergarten.

[McSporran]

I agree toally Optom3 - well said (on both forum's).

[Susie]

Hi

I support any action taken for a fairer immigration system and admire anyone who takes the time and trouble to do do.

There are so many sites with differing views on H1B numbers, family renunification amongest others and are willing to offer assistance , time permitting if asked to do so but also feel that we must not detract from the main aims of our site and concentrate on those issues. Protecting all children from aging out and a compassionate visa to include family reunification, backloggs, delays etc.,

[Munish]

Forgive me, but this is the most unconvincing argument of all for anybody who has grown legs long enough to climb over the playpen's sides.

Argue on the relevant stuff: providing employment, investment, similar treatment for US treaty traders in home countries, loss of US education investment, etcetera.

Saying we should have it because you might have to give it to them is totally ridiculous outside the confines of the kindergarten.

;) It was meant tongue and cheek, reflecting my/our frustration with the lack of focus on reform for legals and family reunification. Of course it's not literally the most powerful argument of all. I've already stated my opinion in the previous posting.

[Munish]

Hi

I support any action taken for a fairer immigration system and admire anyone who takes the time and trouble to do do.

There are so many sites with differing views on H1B numbers, family renunification amongest others and are willing to offer assistance , time permitting if asked to do so but also feel that we must not detract from the main aims of our site and concentrate on those issues. Protecting all children from aging out and a compassionate visa to include family reunification, backloggs, delays etc.,

Susie, We can start these issues on another thread and have contributors add their thoughts including on any potential working group. Just missed your call, will call tomorrow so we can chat more fully.

[DEE F]

[QUOTE=optom3]:) Hi at the risk of offending everyone take a look at my post on the florida forum.In my arrogant opinion I believe the way forward is one cohesive force.I feel it is a case of united we stand ,divided we fall.I am too eye and finger sore to rewrite everything I posted on the other forum but I am sure plenty who read this forum also post on the other.I do not believe that several splinter groups is the way forward.Why should congress listen when we can't even agree amongst ourselves?The other problem is that if we fail to move quickly,then this window of opportunity will be lost to us.It is a simply enormous task to try and change a countries immigration policy.particularly when it is not our country.I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to achieve back in the U.K let alone here.So shoot me down in flames but I still think one cohesive effort which may not cover everyones needs is the way forward.insults and bickering are for the playground not for a move to try and rewrite a countries legislation.
We are trying to prove are we not that we are intelligent business owners who are going to have a positive economic impact on the communities in which we live and therefore are deserving of some recognition for that in the form of a green card.Not a pack of whining bickering kids arguing in the playground.If as some believe the beings in power do read these forums,then what hope!!!Now shoot me.

Hi Optom3 once again totaly agree with your posts both on here and the other forum,this is certainly a matter where in my opinion everyone needs to be singing out of the same song book,take care;)

Dee xx

[chris]

I have had a long hard day, I am tired and feel like I have done several rounds with Mike Tyson after reading personal comments about me (and a couple of others) on another site. However, it has given me a chance to think about the issues of immigration reform that were discussing earlier.
I take Susie's point about the need to refocus on the main aim of THIS site and that is Dream Act, CSPA, Strive Act and Compassionate Visas. Through the reform of these areas, our children will at least have a future they can look forward to in the USA. For all of us adults, we made a clear choice to come and we weighed the pros and cons of the move. By contrast, most kids don't get a choice and are simply brought here, some kicking and screaming, some thinking its a Disney vacation and others who only care about where the next bottle feed is coming from. They are the ones we should be mainly focussing on. From change for them, will be the benefits we adults will reap in the longer term.

[DEE F]

Well said Chris,and oh by the way I feel like that most days lol

Dee xx

[Kriz1]

I have had a long hard day, I am tired and feel like I have done several rounds with Mike Tyson after reading personal comments about me (and a couple of others) on another site. However, it has given me a chance to think about the issues of immigration reform that were discussing earlier.
I take Susie's point about the need to refocus on the main aim of THIS site and that is Dream Act, CSPA, Strive Act and Compassionate Visas. Through the reform of these areas, our children will at least have a future they can look forward to in the USA. For all of us adults, we made a clear choice to come and we weighed the pros and cons of the move. By contrast, most kids don't get a choice and are simply brought here, some kicking and screaming, some thinking its a Disney vacation and others who only care about where the next bottle feed is coming from. They are the ones we should be mainly focussing on. From change for them, will be the benefits we adults will reap in the longer term.

A really good post Chris...I'm having a good day today agree with almost everyone....:)

[InnVic]

Optom3 - are we that forum you don't want to associate with (as posted on the other forum?)

If so, please understand we don't all have choices like you do, we all work HARD for our right to stay in the US. I defy anyone (who isn't already a GC holder or on the way) to honestly say they do not feel a little cheated because their own personal situation is not reflected (and therefore would not qualify for GC) in the proposed change. It is human nature to want to look after number one. If that is perceived as negative then I cannot agree. And whilst I applaude change I do not agree with change for the sake of change or something that will only impact a small select group. If we are to change the fate of E2 holders then it should be fair and universal. You have to understand up till a week or so ago we had no idea that there was support for parity of treatment. Then we are presented with almost a fait accomplice. Now regarding asking for too much, from my own perspective I love the analogy of the kid that really wants a Puppy, he ask for a Pony, He pesters his parents for a pony for weeks, MUm and Dad eventually give in and compromise with a puppy! Ask for more than you want and compromise. Pitch your request too low and you'll still have to compromise. Power of negotiation, a good business practice where I come from.

[britcan]

well said InnVic!!

[Susie]

I admire anyone who gives their time freely to help others and any ammendment or new legislation is open to discussion provided that the posters do not resort to making personal attacks against any member or any other forum. This will not be tollerated and not the point of the thread which was posted by a member of another forum so people could discuss the contents of the legislation both good or otherwise

I will not comment on this thread again as I and others beleive our site needs to concentrate on our own aims. Mods will be monoriting the comments and will edit or close the thread if they feel action is necessary

[InnVic]

I understand the need to limit any personal attacks - I am however concerned that "the other forum" are claiming that this bill is purely a Florida issue.....with all respect E2 visa holders are in EVERY state. I respect their right to lobby Ms Wilson but there is nothing to stop any of us lobbying Senators in our own state. I have not posted on the other forum, but I read it from time to time, so am aware what is being said about our site by their members (and a few of our members!)

[Kriz1]

I like everyone else I hope.. stand fully behind anyone wishing to talk to their Senator..I've talked to mine...not that it did much good...has anyone said they can't and I missed it...??

[chris]

InnVic,
I understand totally where you are coming from. It's been very stormy here in Florida this apst week and the Hurricane season has yet to start!
That said, I do believe it is the absolute right of everyone on this and other sites and anywhere else for that matter to make contact with ANY Senator, Congressman or Member of Parliament whom they wish and to create an awareness of the unfairness of immigration system, highlighting whichever issue is most pertinent to their circumstances. It is called Freedom.
I think we all should accept that the E2 immigration reform proposed motion being developed elsewhere is in the domain of the people within that domain and the ideology behind represents the thoughts and wishes of that domain and we should respect that. However anything that members, individually or collectively of EV should feel to address any element of the Immigration Act they wish with whoever they wish. it is called Freedom.
There has been some talk of collective action on this, but IMHO I believe that is a non starter on any issue. The simple reason being, who do you include beyond this site? Is it a Brit thing, a world thing, a Florida thing? Get my drift. A nice thought but unworkable.

[optom3]

Optom3 - are we that forum you don't want to associate with (as posted on the other forum?)

If so, please understand we don't all have choices like you do, we all work HARD for our right to stay in the US. I defy anyone (who isn't already a GC holder or on the way) to honestly say they do not feel a little cheated because their own personal situation is not reflected (and therefore would not qualify for GC) in the proposed change. It is human nature to want to look after number one. If that is perceived as negative then I cannot agree. And whilst I applaude change I do not agree with change for the sake of change or something that will only impact a small select group. If we are to change the fate of E2 holders then it should be fair and universal. You have to understand up till a week or so ago we had no idea that there was support for parity of treatment. Then we are presented with almost a fait accomplice. Now regarding asking for too much, from my own perspective I love the analogy of the kid that really wants a Puppy, he ask for a Pony, He pesters his parents for a pony for weeks, MUm and Dad eventually give in and compromise with a puppy! Ask for more than you want and compromise. Pitch your request too low and you'll still have to compromise. Power of negotiation, a good business practice where I come from.


Hi ,you are quite right I am one and the same hence the same name!!!You are also correct I was not going to post on this forum,but then I'm female so reserve the right to change my mind!!! I know sexist comment .I still can't agree with you as I fervently believe ask for too much and you will end with nothing.My opinion only.
The reason I decided to throw in my 2 cents worth on this forum ,having had a change of heart,was in a vain attempt to try and get everyone together instead of fighting against what should be a common goal.I am very aware of kids having no choice in some instances,I have 3 of my own,who we consulted every step of the way.It was a family decision and everyone knew that if 1 individual was unhappy with the scenario then we would not have gone ahead.
Yes I may have an alternative in the form of the EB5 but in these uncertain climes who knows what may transpire on that front.
With this in mind I obviously have a vested interest in what does or does not occur with the proposed immigration reform.I have made no secret of any postings in fact I have referred back to my posts on the other forum and vice versa.I could have deleted the post,but kept it there for all to see.
I have tried to be fair if somewhat opinionated and if that upsets you,then I am sorry.
I strongly suspect that if we are seen to be too demanding we may live to regret it.We all my family included knew it was a non immigrant visa when we embarked on the journey.Admittedly we personally had hopes for the EB5 but that is some way on the horizon as yet.In the meantime I do not think I have ever implied that others have not worked just as hard as us on their various enterprises.That would be too rude and arrogant even for me.
I still think that whatever changes are proposed some people will be excluded.To expect a complete overhaul of the whole E2 non immigrant visa to an immigrant green card with no restrictions or caveats is shooting for the moon ,and much as I would be "over the moon" if that happens,I fear that we will end with nothing ,by demanding too much.
If I am proved wrong then I will eat as much humble pie as anyone desires.Having run my practice back in the U.K it is something I am all too familiar with.However I am also well aquainted with the diplomatic road of compromise.In fact I'm off to eat some humble pie now as my husband told me I would have no joy in attempting to unite so many disparate factions.
It was probably shortsighted(pardon the pun from an optometrist)to even try.It was maybe even presumptious of me as a "newbie"
I cannot help but be concerned that a proposed blanket change with so many less than legitimate E2 holders out here(we all know some)will open up a very large can of worms!!!
I wish everyone all the best in all their endeavours and hope to be eating truck loads of pie soon preferably key lime not the TGI Fridays dirt and worm variety!!!

[Sharon]

There must be a reason why the senator wants to limit the number to 3000 but why such a low limit when the h1b is about 60,000 a year. I do feel guilty sometimes and a bit selfish and think to myself what am i doing to my children. They worry about being clever enough to be able to stay and is making my eldest stressed. All their friends can work and treat themselves but mine are not allowed to work so feel a bit left out

[fatbrit]

There must be a reason why the senator wants to limit the number to 3000 but why such a low limit when the h1b is about 60,000 a year.

You have a major misunderstanding of current and/or proposed legislation.

[Munish]

Sharon, if there are individual senator who want to reduce the cap, I would not pay too much attention to it. The majority recognise the H1-B cap has to be increased from 85,000 (including 20,000 for advanced degree holders only). The real issue is, are 115,000 (as is proposed in the bill) enough taking into account the caps. Please see relevant H1-B threads.

[InnVic]

To expect a complete overhaul of the whole E2 non immigrant visa to an immigrant green card with no restrictions or caveats is shooting for the moon

Please read as if spoken in a rational tone of voice, as intended:)

We (E2 visa holders) already operate our businesses with restrictions and caveats - my point was (and still is) why, if we fulfill the criteria they require to allow us to stay in the US ad infinitum (subject to renewal), does it become necessary to move the goal posts, and in a manner that is neither logical or fair. A set investment sum will cause businesses to inflate their price to the magic figure for citizens from treaty countries. Specifying a number of employees means nothing - I could employ 2 paying $100K pa or 10 @ $8K pa, is it fair that the lesser payroll would qualify when the higher wouldn't. Factoring in the number of kids in relation to “revenue” does not make sense at all. And we've already covered the word 'revenue" ad nauseum. I just think that IF you have to make changes and IF you need to put in restrictions make them fair and logical. And if I’m being obtuse and can’t see the logic then the person proposing the changes could explain it to me rather than throwing a tantrum and reverting to name calling because I (and others) dared to ask questions.


My thoughts and opinions on this matter were not an attack or "bashing" but I believe valid points that should be considered. A forum is all about discussion, I'm happy to listen to anyone’s justification and opinion, but I expect this to be reciprocal.
As members of ExpatsVoice we don't always agree, but we are all in the same boat.

For information on a personal level the proposed changes make no difference to me as our intention was always to be in the US for 5-7 years max. My Father in law is now a US citizen and could sponsor us if required, I have also been offered positions by local companies who cannot find other qualified personnel locally so the employment route to a GC is available if we wanted – we don’t.

[v2002]

[I]My Father in law is now a US citizen and could sponsor us if required, I have also been offered positions by local companies who cannot find other qualified personnel locally so the employment route to a GC is available if we wanted – we don’t.
I wonder why break your head on something "thats of no interest to you "
:confused:

[InnVic]

I didn't say it was of no interest - I said it made no difference.

Whilst if doesn't effect me it could effect people I care about. Surely the point of the group is that we all watch each others back. I'm not the shrinking violet type (you may have noticed :-) ) If I see something I think is unfair then I will comment. If we only looked after our own interests it would be a very sad world.

[Kriz1]

I agree with Innvic...some of us are fine and dandy here...but we still help out others if we can...I may sometime come across as hard on a subject...or about the USA itself...but that is because I want other to learn through our mistakes.....or the things that have happen to us along the way....

[v2002]

I didn't say it was of no interest - I said it made no difference.

Whilst if doesn't effect me it could effect people I care about. Surely the point of the group is that we all watch each others back. I'm not the shrinking violet type (you may have noticed :-) ) If I see something I think is unfair then I will comment. If we only looked after our own interests it would be a very sad world.
I would say very little on this "I know you fairly little through your posts and I feel you are right on what you said above" You are fair with your comments BUT My question is simple Why not wait and see if anything in this direction goes anywhere in the first attempt? dont you think you are jumping to conclusions? do that when you DO SEE something happening just now some one is makeing an effort to OPEN the road to changes, once its in place do what you all want to do further. atleast see if USCIS is evan open to make any change in the first place.

[chris]

InnVic,
I've taken a real verbal bashing over my stance on this proposal and I've just given up on it by way of interest or comment. I'm wasting my breath because no-one wants to listen ot take in positive comment or suggestion, but only want so carp at you as being somehow negative. At the end of the day, it is someone else's thing and I'm quite happy now to let them move ahead with what they want do. I'm done with it. I think from the last posting to you, some members are making it very clear to all who commented on its content 'zip your mouth, this proposal is not open for discussion or debate and if you do, then you are being negative and not supportive of E2 aims'. If that's how people see freedom of expression working, well I must be in the wrong sorts of forums. Personally I see it as a load of cobblers.
Without bringing religion into the fray, I seem to recall a certain person got crucified today for trying to bring out into the open discussion and debate on certain things. What's changed?

[optom3]

[I]Please read as if spoken in a rational tone of voice, as intended[/
I do agree with some of your points, gasp,and I do not think you are being obtuse.I think the reason for specifying employees is just that,i.e they want us to have as many U.S citizens on our payroll as possible.I think it is a matter of indifferance to them how much we pay them,it's a number crunching exercise.
I also get (don't necessarily agree) with factoring in kids.I have 3 of my own and they are expensive to maintain.I guess the whole logic behind it is to ensure that we are all completely self sufficient.I happen to think the numbers quoted are not unreasonable,my own kids cost considerably more to keep,but maybe they are just spoiled!!!
Where I agree is that it probably is not a fair and equitable arrangement,but then I don't think many aspects of life are fair.(that's for a whole different forum though)What the people doing who have put forward the proposals I would guess is to try and hammer out some deal which is acceptable to both the legislators and as many of the E2 holders as possible.
I like the fact that actual numbers and sums of money have been mentioned.At least people know then where they stand.The present system is a farce.There is no mention of specifics when purchasing the original business.It just has to be a substantial investment.A phrase that can be interpreted any way on a mere whim.
The existing system is unfair,some get E2's issued on businesses which cost 100,000 others get refused on ones that have a purchase price of 250,000.
This way we know what we have to pay,we know what we have to produce and we know how many we have to employ.All ambiguities are removed and surely a large element of worry at the same time.
Will businesses suddenly shoot up to the 200,000 mark,who knows.Anyone buying a business in the 1st instance should be doing the number crunching.Generally 3 times the nett,if the numbers don't add up don't buy it.
If nos. of businesses sold reduce because of artificial hiking up of prices ,then the market forces will automatically come into play and prices will readjust.
I could be very wrong but I think Americans going to the U.K have to invest substantially more than that,but I could be remembering that incorrectly.Early Alzheimers!!!
Please take this in the spirit it is intended,it is my view and opinions onlyand as said on other postings,I am still very grateful to those who have managed to the work involved in getting things thus far.
I will not criticise as I have done nothing bar air my views,.Had I been invoved in all the hard work myself than maybe I would feel different,but I haven't so am just grateful that others have taken up the torch on behalf of me and others like me.
Like I said it will never be possible to please everyone,not even him upstairs can do that!!! regards,Fiona/optom3



We (E2 visa holders) already operate our businesses with restrictions and caveats - my point was (and still is) why, if we fulfill the criteria they require to allow us to stay in the US ad infinitum (subject to renewal), does it become necessary to move the goal posts, and in a manner that is neither logical or fair. A set investment sum will cause businesses to inflate their price to the magic figure for citizens from treaty countries. Specifying a number of employees means nothing - I could employ 2 paying $100K pa or 10 @ $8K pa, is it fair that the lesser payroll would qualify when the higher wouldn't. Factoring in the number of kids in relation to “revenue” does not make sense at all. And we've already covered the word 'revenue" ad nauseum. I just think that IF you have to make changes and IF you need to put in restrictions make them fair and logical. And if I’m being obtuse and can’t see the logic then the person proposing the changes could explain it to me rather than throwing a tantrum and reverting to name calling because I (and others) dared to ask questions.


My thoughts and opinions on this matter were not an attack or "bashing" but I believe valid points that should be considered. A forum is all about discussion, I'm happy to listen to anyone’s justification and opinion, but I expect this to be reciprocal.
As members of ExpatsVoice we don't always agree, but we are all in the same boat.

For information on a personal level the proposed changes make no difference to me as our intention was always to be in the US for 5-7 years max. My Father in law is now a US citizen and could sponsor us if required, I have also been offered positions by local companies who cannot find other qualified personnel locally so the employment route to a GC is available if we wanted – we don’t.

[InnVic]

Why not wait and see if anything in this direction goes anywhere in the first attempt? dont you think you are jumping to conclusions? do that when you DO SEE something happening just now some one is makeing an effort to OPEN the road to changes, once its in place do what you all want to do further. atleast see if USCIS is evan open to make any change in the first place.

Thanks for your understanding of my intentions. Not jumping to conclusions, but the proposals were put forward as a 'draft" - therfore to my mind not set in stone. If you sit and wait to see what happens and they were actually implemented as drafted then one really has no right to then comment or gripe. As it is still a work in progress then I feel it is appropriate that we all consider points that "could" be included or omitted from the proposal.

I do wonder if we are being too British here (sense of fair play, mustn't grumble etc..) Americans would not settle for so little and I believe the US respects assertive and ambitious people. However as Chris has said its obvious that we're expected to butt out so I won't post any more on this subject

[bobinalbuquerque]

I did not realise so much had been written about the initial draft created with Congresswoman Heather Wilson's Washington team.
Have no time for forum wars,but those of you specifically caught up with E2's may appreciate understanding a broader picture and not least be pleased to learn that Josh Baca diligently continues to make progress on a draft proposal.The "initial" draft that Peter shared with this site did in my opinion contain three area's which needed a rethink.
My involvement? Well we (my wife tricia) initially met with the Congresswoman here in Albuquerque at the end of 2006. Our status is that of a 15 year-long E2 business owner.With a 16 year-old son our concerns are no different than that of any other long term E2 holder,principally,no pathway to a more permanent status and the ageing out factor of children.The aspect that really seemed to concern her was the lack of fairness in the situation.
Since that initial meeting the leg-work for the draft has been passed from her Albuquerque office to the Washington one with Josh Baca taking the reigns.
Peter was instrumental in introducing an A.I.L.A. representative to Josh for it was felt the issue would benefit from their involvement.
Be assured as and when meaningful information is provided to me I will add more to this thread.
Bob Franklin

[chris]

BobinAlberque
As one of the 'leeches' described very colorfully 'elsewhere', who dared to raise constructive questions about the content about this 'draft' legislation and help make it better, clearer and ultimately stronger, I am grateful that you posted here and 'elsewhere' last week. At least it showed that our comments were taken in some quarters as constructive and not simply negative and destructive as some took it to be.
However, from a purely personal perspective it has been made clear in postings 'elsewhere' that this legislation is the 'ownership' of specifically of the members of 'somewhere else' and not with every E2'r (Brit or otherwise) that it affects. I'm not attempting to open up wounds, mine are nicely healed thanks. But as a piece of legislation, I thank you for your efforts, but after the personal attacks on me and others for discussing it I've heard enough of it thanks. The 'elsewhere' is welcome to it!

[InnVic]

Hi Bob
I guess I'm a leech too :-) and although all of the initial comments to Petes first post on this draft legislation have now been removed from this forum (by Bernadette I believe) there really was not the "attack" or hijack as was claimed on "the other forum". We made much the same observations as you eloquently described in your post on FF (I lurk!) Bearing in mind that no one on an E2 has an easy ride and that any proposed legislation could have a life altering effect its understandable that emotions run high. Many of those of us that had commented, pointed out concerns regarding the fact that the proposed criteria was not rational and would exclude many- which would only go to create a two tier visa. Its reasuring to hear a voice of reason, and if you stick around you'll discover we're not such a bad lot :-)
Thanks for the update - we look forward to your future posts.

[bobinalbuquerque]

I'm sorry Chris much of what you say has gone completely over my head,I really don't understand why or how animosity has crept into a situation that both sites should be united upon.I know the E2 and everything about it is important to me and my family,I know nothing of your situation yet suspect if you are an E2 person we will quickly be joining forces rather than separating!

Being here in New Mexico I'm a fair way off the Florida forums main audience but have enjoyed visiting that site for several years.I'm still mightily appreciative to RAY who provided some excellent info.to me when we were tackling a particular problem with an SSN card, armed with his input the issue was sorted in a matter of minutes.

My awareness of this site was gained from JulieC a year or so ago and although I've only ever posted a handful of comments I have regularly checked in to see the latest issues.

Although you mention you want to hear nothing more of it I'm sure you will recognise that there are others who would .If ever we are succesful in implementing legislation even with limited caps would it not be great for E2 forum members on here to have that knowledge at the earliest opportunity? I look forward to the opportunity of posting more comments as and when relevant info.becomes available to me.

[Grumpy]

InnVic,
I've taken a real verbal bashing over my stance on this proposal and I've just given up on it by way of interest or comment. I'm wasting my breath because no-one wants to listen ot take in positive comment or suggestion, but only want so carp at you as being somehow negative. At the end of the day, it is someone else's thing and I'm quite happy now to let them move ahead with what they want do. I'm done with it. I think from the last posting to you, some members are making it very clear to all who commented on its content 'zip your mouth, this proposal is not open for discussion or debate and if you do, then you are being negative and not supportive of E2 aims'. If that's how people see freedom of expression working, well I must be in the wrong sorts of forums. Personally I see it as a load of cobblers.
Without bringing religion into the fray, I seem to recall a certain person got crucified today for trying to bring out into the open discussion and debate on certain things. What's changed?


Hear hear Chris

Your right it seemed no one wanted to listen to you ,others or knowledgeable members of this site if they did they might have learned something or improved the proposals

Have kept quite on this subject till now but as far as I am aware all people have done is mull over the proposals and make comments on them. This is called freedom of speech and if someone makes any post we are entitled to our opinions.

[chris]

Bob in Alberqerque,
My not wanting to hear anything more on this proposal is simply an emotive response to what has been a very personal range of attackes on me as well as attacks on members of EV and EV itself.
When the 'draft proposal' was first 'aired on here and 'elsewhere', many of us (me included) took that to be a draft for discussion and comment. As an E2'r and having a modicum of knowledge on the subject as well as being an ex-civil servant involved in the development of legislation from draft through to actual, I reviewed it as presented to us and highlighted where the draft could be improved by amendment or where information was included that was inappropriate, badly worded or ill thought through. That was not bashing the draft or the folks behind it. Merely someone who would be affecetd by the legislation and who wanted to chip in their 5 cents worth in a constructive way. We all want the best proposal to go forward, because it should then stand the best chance of succeeding.
That was all that was ever behind our input. However, if someone present final proposals FYI, then that is another matter and it is making it clear it is for information and no input will be accepted. It wasn't, so we did. Simple as that. All I (we) got for our effort and contribution was bad mouthing, slurs and slander. It is therefore not surprising that I was a little upset and really disinclined to have or hear anything more about it. It was being made clear by otheres 'elsewhere' that it was their little piece of legislation, no-one elses's and we had better zip it.
That's how it was 2 weeks ago and I have no wish to get involved in any further regurgitation of the matter. Suffice it to say, that if you would like my comments again by PM, I will be happy to send them, but only by request. I have learned not to stick my neck out any more.

[Munish]

Bob, we all support the idea for permanent residency being provided to E2ers.

In fact not all of us, including me, have any personal interest in the E2 matter, but still made comments for the discussion and to be considered in any draft. Weaknesses in the proposal as presented were highlighted with recommendations for improvement. But somewhere along the line I guess these recommendations, as indicated by subsequent comments, were for some reason viewed as offensive.

What happened may not be clear when reading this whole thread as certain posts were removed by a former member-moderator, which may have affected this thread.

The important point is if work is done resulting in E2ers being eligible for permanent residency then that will of course be excellent. However, many current members on this site, including myself, did show support for the idea, made recommendations, which considered not only how the proposals would benefit E2ers but also the potential reactions and interests (on both sides of the argument) represented at policy making and Congressional level.

In fact we were so passionate about the issue that we took the time out, which ultimately was wasted, in making out individual contributions with the idea that this would result in a viable proposal.

Now we do not wish to hinder the positive attempts at achiveing this objective, and so we recognise it is best that one body leads on making the attempt. There is no need for different voices on one issue, and it has been made clear our voices are not needed and so rather than compete, which would serve no positive purpose, it is best that we leave others to pursue their valient attempts.

[byjove]

Hello every one.

Just sat here and read the postings, and I am a little shocked. There shouldn't be "the other forum" comments. Surley we are all wanting the same?! If your E,L,H or X,Y,Z. In any part of the good 'ole US of A. (And Canada!) Does it matter what "forum" you post on???

THe aim of this is our kids, mainly, isnt it?

Families are being pulled apart, no, TORN apart. Mothers forced to make heartbreaking decisions. Families forced to go to the UK during great grief after losing the principal visa holder, or after making a life here and things going just a little bit wrong (lets face it it can happen) example: A leaping construction/housing market phase in 2004-05, tripped and fell flat on its face in 06 because of the storms! Does that mean anyone in construction who had a hard time in 06 should go home? Like some others my children were to young to discuss the move with and get a sensible answer, my daughter is so Americanised she doesn't know what a "sweetie" is, she would feel like an alien in the UK now!

Also we came over under the false impression that we COULD convert to green card! (More fool us huh?) but I think it is the people that are in this turmoil NOW that need our support, and backlashing each forum is wrong. Not everyone is in a "forum" to make a comment. I have been here 3 years and didnt know this was here till yesterday. This is a great forum to be involved in you are a great bunch. I have had a few chuckles over the last 24hours. But lets not loose sight of the real goals in a "he said she said" battle.

Come on guys! We are "BRITS" after all. So stiff upper lip and chocks away chums. Lets all rally together here, and in the FF and secure peoples futures! Coz lets face it, it feels like coming home here doesn't it??