I'm looking for a US citizen from Texas who is sponsoring their brother, sister, or parent to comment on the Bush/Kyle proposal to introduce numerical limits that would create years of backlogs for everyody who is doing this.

This is for a national news story being written today. I need to hear from you as soon as possible.

Thank you,
Randall Emery
American Families United

My contact information:
http://americanfamiliesunited.org/index.ph...&Itemid=175

Thats not quite right, have a look on Shustermann's web site for details of competing proposals.

Of course there are many proposals but none I am aware of have a limitation on sponsoring parents.

Siblings have long waits currently, but then the logic of having this category has been questioned in many threads on this board.

I'm sure that the Associated Press will be very interested. I can see the headline now, "Anonymous man who immigrated years ago unaware of recent immigration proposals that don't affect him personally, but doesn't really care if they are enacted."

I can always count on you to keep my posts at the top of the forum.

Unlikley



Whilst wishing to retain my anonymity the only thing correct in that statement is that I am male.



Pleased to be of assistance.

Anyway,

I know of no proposals that restrict sponsorship of Parents. I may have missed it. But a change of this magnitude surely would have received a lot of comment.

For those interested here are the links to the various proposals, together with a commentary from Shusterman:

1. The President's new immigration plan which was leaked to the press recently, see

http://shusterman.com/toc-leg.html#6B

2. The Senate bill which was passed in 2006, see

http://shusterman.com/toc-leg.html#6D

3. The STRIVE Act which was introduced in the House of Representatives in March 2007, see

http://shusterman.com/toc-leg.html#6E

All of the above have one important thing in common, and it has nothing to do with amnesty, guest workers or increased levels of immigration enforcement.

All would change the way most people immigrate to the United States. For over 40 years, we have had a family-based system where citizens could apply for their spouses, parents, sons and daughters and brothers and sisters. Less than 10% of immigrants qualify through their jobs. Their employers are required to prove that they are not displacing U.S. workers.

Each of the proposals listed above would make employment-based immigration the main component of our laws. The Senate and House bills would greatly expand the employment-based system by lifting the yearly quota from 140,000 to 500,000 to 1,000,000.

At the same time, under the existing law, over 3.5 million relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent residents have been waiting for five to over 20 years to obtain green cards through their relatives.

The President's plan would go further than the Senate and House bills, and increase employment-based immigration at the expense of family-based immigration. No longer would U.S. citizens be able to apply for their siblings and adult sons and daughters to come to the U.S.

Supporters of the President's proposal like Senator Jeff Sessions (R- ALA) says that without dramatically increasing immigration based on employment, the U.S. will be at a competitive disadvantage worldwide. Critics like Angela Kelley of the National Immigration Forum, say that family-based immigration should remain the cornerstone of our system.

Almost everyone agrees that we will either have a new immigration law in place before August or the issue won't be debated again until 2009.

The question is: Can our immigration system increase the percentage of employment-based immigrants without leaving family-based immigrants out in the cold?

The Senate has set aside the last two weeks in May to discuss Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

We say, "Let the debate begin!"