GC08
06-02 02:57 PM
Who knows what is going to happen? Look at the mess we have now... who can tell that they are not going to create more mess this time ... esp. for those who stay in the line and wait, wait, wait ... forever!
I have to agree with what someone on this forum said before... being legal, being patient and being nice does not pay. :(
Look at the whole immigration debate, all the amendments proposed and all the special interests group... where were we put? Those stuck in the backlogs were never paid attention to.
Sorry for being pessimistic and negative... but if history provides any indication of the future, it definitely has clearly shows the imcompetence of all the government agencies involved (at best)... at worst, it is a total scam/conspiracy... be it government agencies (have you heard fee increases, wasted visa #s, forever renewals?), employers (have you heard blood-sucking employers), and even some lawyers.
Don't know about you. But I have lost confidence about the whole green card thing. :(
I have to agree with what someone on this forum said before... being legal, being patient and being nice does not pay. :(
Look at the whole immigration debate, all the amendments proposed and all the special interests group... where were we put? Those stuck in the backlogs were never paid attention to.
Sorry for being pessimistic and negative... but if history provides any indication of the future, it definitely has clearly shows the imcompetence of all the government agencies involved (at best)... at worst, it is a total scam/conspiracy... be it government agencies (have you heard fee increases, wasted visa #s, forever renewals?), employers (have you heard blood-sucking employers), and even some lawyers.
Don't know about you. But I have lost confidence about the whole green card thing. :(
wallpaper Cute Quotes - Hate Or Love,
tikka
07-18 02:04 PM
As a $20 recurring contributor till now, I am upgrading my monthly contribution to $50 from today onwards.
Good luck to everyone and my wishes to IV CORE.
Also IV membership just crossed the 21000 mark.
Threads: 5,912, Posts: 118,961, Members: 21,000 , Active Members: 14,163
for your contribution.. :)
Good luck to everyone and my wishes to IV CORE.
Also IV membership just crossed the 21000 mark.
Threads: 5,912, Posts: 118,961, Members: 21,000 , Active Members: 14,163
for your contribution.. :)
.jpg "hair funny quotes and sayings")
TomPlate
07-05 02:14 PM
All can file I-485 now. please go through this link.
http://www.murthy.com
http://www.murthy.com
2011 cute funny quotes about boys.
ArkBird
09-15 04:21 PM
Did you check the grammar of your polling question?
I support this. But might to be able to help with the fee
If this is EB2, I am glad/proud/honor to be EB3
:)
People, most of us here are just afraid that they will get red dots, be ridiculed for their beliefs. But the things is; If we don't fight for our rights, who will. We have to defend our place in the queue, which at the moment is at substantial risk.
I want everybody to get their GCs. but now interfiling/porting is hurting out position in the queue.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
I support this. But might to be able to help with the fee
If this is EB2, I am glad/proud/honor to be EB3
:)
People, most of us here are just afraid that they will get red dots, be ridiculed for their beliefs. But the things is; If we don't fight for our rights, who will. We have to defend our place in the queue, which at the moment is at substantial risk.
I want everybody to get their GCs. but now interfiling/porting is hurting out position in the queue.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
more...
ashutrip
06-20 01:28 PM
Refer this.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2567
anybody here who got his labor certified from Atlanta off late
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2567
anybody here who got his labor certified from Atlanta off late
superdude
07-18 03:04 PM
This would suck for older priority dates.
My priority date is March, 2002!! Application was delivered to Nebraska on June 15th but the Receipt date is in mid-July.
So all those filers with priority dates after me (did not come across any with PD older than mine) that got their receipt notices before me would jump ahead in line!! Who knows how many years more...
Hopefully they will change their procedure after this fiasco to go by Priority Dates first and then the receipt dates.
...
That requires sorting of the application by PD. But the SOP does not mention anywhere about the PD Sorting. I am sorry for you guys.
My priority date is March, 2002!! Application was delivered to Nebraska on June 15th but the Receipt date is in mid-July.
So all those filers with priority dates after me (did not come across any with PD older than mine) that got their receipt notices before me would jump ahead in line!! Who knows how many years more...
Hopefully they will change their procedure after this fiasco to go by Priority Dates first and then the receipt dates.
...
That requires sorting of the application by PD. But the SOP does not mention anywhere about the PD Sorting. I am sorry for you guys.
more...
kinvin
05-08 03:25 PM
Does anyone know about how much time the Labor department takes to approve a case under TR after the recruitment formalities are done by the employer.
2010 hair funny quotes and sayings
shankar_thanu
07-18 12:49 PM
after going through some of the posts, i understand that there were earlier attempts to add SKIL amendments to other bills but it didnt fly..
Was there similar attempts to add provisions to 'capture unused numbers' and 'not include dependents for visa number count' to other bills before? Are these much more difficult to get done? Just want to know the history of these issues in the legislature...
Was there similar attempts to add provisions to 'capture unused numbers' and 'not include dependents for visa number count' to other bills before? Are these much more difficult to get done? Just want to know the history of these issues in the legislature...
more...
USDream2Dust
07-11 10:41 AM
First new Iphone and now this news. I am still in Sep 06 but this type of things keeps the hope alive :).
Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuhuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuhuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
hair funny quotes cute. rozne-misc-3-cute-animals-; rozne-misc-3-cute-animals-
485Mbe4001
11-09 05:03 PM
count me in, i am in Irvine, south of LA. If i can be of any help please let me know. I have already done the emailing part, most of the people i know are already members IV.
more...
immi_twinges
07-20 04:13 PM
I think its the right time to get in touch with the USINPAC. Not only USINPAC but all communities who ever have pacts with US government should start getting involved.
"United we stand divided we fall"
"United we stand divided we fall"
hot cute funny quotes about boys.
Blessing&Lifeisbeautiful
08-01 10:48 PM
Latest update from shusterman about bridge legislation for schedule A:
Now, Senator Schumer is seeking to attach the Hutchison-Durbin Amendment to a piece of "must pass" legislation in August. For more information about the immigration of nurses and physical therapists, see "Nurse" page at
http://shusterman.com/toc-rn.html
and "Allied Health Professionals" page at
http://shusterman.com/toc-ahp.html
Hope they will pass it this time....
Questions:
When will be the August recess?
Are there any "must pass" bills, good for such an attachment, scheduled in the senate before the August recess? :confused:
bump
Now, Senator Schumer is seeking to attach the Hutchison-Durbin Amendment to a piece of "must pass" legislation in August. For more information about the immigration of nurses and physical therapists, see "Nurse" page at
http://shusterman.com/toc-rn.html
and "Allied Health Professionals" page at
http://shusterman.com/toc-ahp.html
Hope they will pass it this time....
Questions:
When will be the August recess?
Are there any "must pass" bills, good for such an attachment, scheduled in the senate before the August recess? :confused:
bump
more...
house funny quotes cute. cute funny
yabadaba
07-11 12:01 PM
heres the thing..we have been talking about the 2004 hump for eb2 for a while now. if you download the perm data from 2005 you will see only 7000+ PERM approvals for India. this included a significant number of EB3 other worker categories like pipe welder, cook, etc ( i am assuming they were eb3 -other worker...correct me if i m wrong)
this was the breakdown per month for perm 2005
March-1
April -13
May-72
June-324
July-351
Aug-833
Sept-1172
Oct-1212
Nov-1541
Dec-1771
7290 - includes everybody - eb2, eb3, eb3 other workers
the whole question was the hump of 2004-march2005
ithis is the first time since when retrogression started on oct 1 2005, that the dates have moved beyond 2005.
this was the breakdown per month for perm 2005
March-1
April -13
May-72
June-324
July-351
Aug-833
Sept-1172
Oct-1212
Nov-1541
Dec-1771
7290 - includes everybody - eb2, eb3, eb3 other workers
the whole question was the hump of 2004-march2005
ithis is the first time since when retrogression started on oct 1 2005, that the dates have moved beyond 2005.
tattoo 2010 tattoo funny quotes and
485Mbe4001
03-17 07:28 PM
Not eligible at the current time? If your circumstances change and you become eligible after you file your 2007 federal tax return, you can always file an amended return using Form 1040X. If you're not eligible this year but you become eligible next year, you can claim the economic stimulus payment next year on your 2008 tax return.
both husband-wife should have SSN.
what about july filers. Most have received SSN for H4 by now.
those who already filed using ITIN might be at loss.
both husband-wife should have SSN.
what about july filers. Most have received SSN for H4 by now.
those who already filed using ITIN might be at loss.
more...
pictures i love you quotes cute. funny
mps
07-11 11:13 AM
Pause and take a moment to rejoice. Then turn all eyes to processing dates.
TSC July 17 2007
NSC July 28 2007
That would mean July 2 filers EB2 are waiting only for visa number (assuming USCIS is processing cases strictly on RD basis) - wooooooooooooow.
TSC July 17 2007
NSC July 28 2007
That would mean July 2 filers EB2 are waiting only for visa number (assuming USCIS is processing cases strictly on RD basis) - wooooooooooooow.
dresses cute funny quotes pictures.
willwin
06-10 01:57 PM
That is true and IV core member Nixtor had given details about this visa movement more than a month ago in the all state chapter conference call. This call was strictly for state chapter members of all states. IV core has been meeting DOS and USCIS regularly to find solution to the problems our members have been facing.
Pls take part in the call campaign and contribute funds to be able to find relief.
I don't follow. Are you saying that DOS is disclosing VISA bulletin to IV (core members) even before the actual date of bulletin???
Pls take part in the call campaign and contribute funds to be able to find relief.
I don't follow. Are you saying that DOS is disclosing VISA bulletin to IV (core members) even before the actual date of bulletin???
more...
makeup cute funny quotes about est
hpandey
08-11 03:52 PM
Looks like the USCIS had been busy with the citizenship applications before the Nov elections and hence it has been slow approving I-140's and GC's. Now that it is coming to an end we might see our applications moving forward. Maybe from Nov onwards it would be better.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/08/us_tackles_citi.html
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/08/us_tackles_citi.html
girlfriend cute funny sayings and quotes.
sands_14
09-29 10:22 AM
SO,can we all try to get the unused visas recaptured.If they can do that for nurses and physical therapists ,they can do that to decrease retrogression.I dont think they require senate approval.
Something is better than nothing.Lets push for recapture of unused visas.
Something is better than nothing.Lets push for recapture of unused visas.
hairstyles Cute Funny Quotes, Quotes Cute
pappu
08-12 10:55 AM
Senate Passage of Border Security Legislation
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
baburob2
03-15 06:25 PM
Overall no big progress w.r.t our title's though Brownback's comment on immigration numbers is good.
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
ravish_kaipa
09-12 12:29 PM
Here are my details.
Confirmation Number: 5HL471558P745653V
Amount $100
Confirmation Number: 5HL471558P745653V
Amount $100
No comments:
Post a Comment