from what i ve heard and read about his record he is a very moderate republican. by republican standards. and the thinking he is would operate things more of the status quo than anything of major change. in fact, quoting from the new york times, california of moderate temperment says the new york times who is likely to be preserver of the status quo, and loyal to john boehner. i guess this internal battle of who the republican party is continues. it absolutely does. and kevin mccarthy was part of the leadership team been under house speaker john boehner for the last couple of years and also has been for increasing stem visas for signs and math people to come to the united states. that would have to be
act. i think it s important they have input on those two issues because they ll be the hang-up. i absolutely agree. there s some areas of agreement, but we re not going to get that done unless we have a broader solution. exactly how you draw those lines in terms of what is the pass, how long it takes, there s a lot of subtleties that need to be worked through. i testified at the senate judiciary committee a couple days ago, and that was one of the areas of focus. i m cautiously optimistic even in a broken d.c. that people are starting to come together. there is now bipartisan support for a comprehensive immigration reform, and we need to make sure there s a robust high-skilled plan. start-up visas, stem visas, things like that. the start-up act introduced this week has that. i squared has that. it provides a framework around high-skilled immigration. now s the time to support comprehensive reform. eugene robinson, you write in today s washington post about the president in hi
and as the new york times points out, it eliminates another visa category entirely. the visas set aside for people from countries with low immigration rates to the united states. so the 55,000 stem visas would come at the expense of 55,000 diversity visas. that s a zero sum gain. the elimination of diversity visas would primary affect immigrants from african countries. but despite the discriminatory nature of the bill, republicans insist it s going to create jobs and they are calling out the democrats opposition to the legislation. once again, the house is taking the lead on legislation that is going to help create jo jobs. we believe as this was the first step forward in terms of trying to address the need for modernization in our visa laws. the democrats had two years to do something about immigration reform.
and as the new york times points out, it eliminates another visa category entirely. the visas set aside for people from countries with low immigration rates to the united states. so the 55,000 stem visas would come at the expense of 55,000 diversity visas. that s a zero sum gain. the elimination of diversity visas would primary affect immigrants from african countries. but despite the discriminatory nature of the bill, republicans insist it s going to create jobs and they are calling out the democrats opposition to the legislation. once again, the house is taking the lead on legislation that is going to help create jobs. we believe as this was the first step forward in terms of trying to address the need for modernization in our visa laws. the democrats had two years to do something about immigration reform.
points out, it eliminates another visa category entirely. the diversity visas set aside for people from countries with relytively low immigration rates to the united states. so the 55,000 s.t.e.m. visas would come at the expense of 55,000 diversity visas. that s a zero-sum game, folks. the elimination of diversity visas would primary affect immigrants from african countries. but despite the discriminatory nature of the bill, republicans insist, oh, it s going to create jobs and they re calling out the democrats opposition to the legislation. once again, the house is taking the lead on legislation that is going to help create jobs. we believe as this was the first step forward in terms of trying to address the need for modernization in our visa laws. the democrats had two years to do something about immigration reform. they had a white house, they had