Talk:Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013

Jobs to be posted on government website

I saw this article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/06/tech-firms-lobbying-against-labor-immigration-measure/2137837/ where it says that the bill will:

require job openings to be posted on a new government website for 30 days and order companies to first extend job offers to "equally or better qualified" U.S. workers

Just wondering where this tidbit would fit on this page. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That information is already outdated based on revisions made in late-May before being voted out of committee. All employers will have to post the job openings, but only "skilled worker dependent" employers (a new classification added in this amendment) will have to offer the job to the equally qualified applicant. JoelWhy?(talk) 19:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• User:JoelWhy, thanks for taking the time to respond. I wonder, though, if Wikipedia readers also know that "all employers will have to post the job openings, but only 'skilled worker dependent' employers will have to offer the job to the equally qualified applicant"? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It's certainly something that can be added. But, you would likely have to add a lot more information to put it all into context; and it would be difficult to source. What I mean by that is that the bill (as it currently stands -- the full Senate hasn't gotten around to adding/amending/removing stuff, yet) only requires 'skilled worker dependent' employers to offer U.S. workers the jobs, which would likely make many U.S. citizens think it's an easy way to get cheap, foreign labor. The reality is that most of the H1Bs are going to companies that only hire employees who fit in the 'skilled worker' category. Also, the bill introduces a TON of new or increased fees. So, even though you're offering U.S. candidates the same wage as the foreign candidate, the reality is that you have to pay much more to get the foreign worker. Finally, I should note that the bill requires the skilled-worker dependent employers to hire an equally qualified candidate, but that's really referencing how qualified the person is on paper. If the guy shows up late to the interview, dresses like a slob, etc, it's very difficult for the employer to nevertheless not offer him the job because the objective info (e.g. years of employment, education background, etc) make him 'equally qualified.'

In any case, it can be edited now, or we can wait a couple of weeks until things start to change in the bill yet again (or, the current provisions get more solidified through the rejection of changes by the full Senate.) JoelWhy?(talk) 17:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Merging

I think this article has the most appropriate title (name of bill + year) and cleanest intro. There is a decent amount to bring in from the other pages though. AFTER the relevant information has been moved, we should set the other titles to redirect here: "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013" > "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act" + "Editing Talk:Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S.744)" Sb101 (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Whilst the information needs to be integrated into this article; I feel I've moved the relevant information from the other pages. They should be deleted and set to redirect to this page. Sb101 (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I do agree that they need to be merged. I created the second article accidentally duplicating the first (I searched "immigration bill" and got the 2007 one and didn't pick up on this article). I've been working on other articles and haven't had time to return and help with the merge. If you'll go ahead and leave the old one up for a few more days, I'll help out with this merge.

There are a few things to note. First, we need to move over the infobox. It was recently broken by another user, and I haven't worked out how to fix it yet (the short and long titles should appear, for instance). Second, you've suggested that the "congressional findings" section be merged with the "overview". I'd disagree with this. The "congressional findings" section was copied word for word from the actual text of the legislation. It's pretty, fancy, nice things that Congress says, not necessarily the actual truth. I think it's valuable to point out to readers what Congress says their goal is, but that we as encyclopedia editors separate that from a more factual discussion in the overview. Does that make sense?

Finally, the Congressional Research Service has finally (it took them forever to summarize a 744 page bill! lol) released its summary. [1] This could be a very good resource for filling out the rest of the provisions section.

Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I've redirected Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S.744), which was just a stub. I copied the talk page below:

This is the same bill. Of course it should be merged. (Or, just do a redirect.) JoelWhy?(talk) 16:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Joel; See: Talk:Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013Sb101 (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ypnypn (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we go ahead and just do the merge/redirect? I've never actually done one, so I'm not 100% sure how it's done. But, both articles are being worked on by different people, which is just silly. Nothing to debate here, they are discussing the exact same bill. JoelWhy?(talk) 13:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Problems with the lede

The lede, as it currently is, is too long and includes stuff that is not in the body of the article. So, not really a good summary. Some of the political discussions, discussions on economic impact etc. should probably have its own section in the body instead of being all put in the lede. I also see a slight pro-bill bias in some parts of the lede (removed some of it). Regards,Iselilja (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I just tagged it. 2600:1001:B003:E2FD:31A6:6981:6F76:EE04 (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Please check the fact

The article text is saying:

The bill amends the existing category for married sons and daughters of citizens of the United States (the third preference) to bar anyone from entering who is over 30 years of age.

I've found nothing about that in the bill. Please double check this. Thanks.

--Varnav (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130625054024/http://news.yahoo.com:80/senate-immigration-deal-double-number-u-border-agents-030840734.html? to http://news.yahoo.com/senate-immigration-deal-double-number-u-border-agents-030840734.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131016083124/http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1322.html to http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1322.html#occupations

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217034041/http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/WaitingListItem.pdf to http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/WaitingListItem.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130609230837/http://www.travel.state.gov:80/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5993.html to http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5993.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.immigrationcomplianceblog.com/Immigration%20Reform%202013.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130621173131/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-s744/show to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-s744/show

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Issues

I just did a lot of work on this piece, but it needs more.

The main problem with it is that it provides very little information on the significance of the bill and the public debate on it.

Other problems include the lengthy, sloppy, and possibly unnecessary "Provisions" section and the inadequate and one-sided "Reactions" section (I changed it from "Criticism" to "Reaction" to make it more even-handed, but it is still more of a criticism section). 74.67.45.185 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)