mbawa2574
07-07 07:47 PM
Can Patton Boggs do better? Haven't we had more legislative success, I mean traction, when we partnered with Quinn Gillespie? Are we receiving sound advice on which of our grievances require legislative action and which ones can be redressed by a mere change in policy on the part of the executive? It looks like most of our current problems were not ushered in by any new law, but rather by a stroke of a pen in a memo by the incompetent and indifferent INS, USCIS, DOL and the State Department. No change in law was needed to make then deny us concurrent filing in Oct 2005 and allow it in July 2007. No change in law was required to deny us visa revalidation. One could argue that no change in law is required to belatedly use unused visas from the previous years. The list goes on. It should be easier to lobby a handful of buffoons in the executive branch with real power than 500+ buffoons on Capitol Hill. Has Patton Boggs served us well?
We are hitting the wrong doors. We are not doing anything which gives us some visibility with media and politicians or administration. Time is running out guys
We are hitting the wrong doors. We are not doing anything which gives us some visibility with media and politicians or administration. Time is running out guys
gjoe
01-06 08:16 AM
Folks,
..
Indian culture, heritage 5000 years old. Indian education is gift of britishers, hence needs some adjustments to suit the current global competition.
A small but important correction in the above quote. Indian education is not a gift of the Brits. As a matter of fact history of eduction in India dates back to its cultural heritage. Nalanda university is considered to be the worlds first university. Correct me if I am wrong.
..
Indian culture, heritage 5000 years old. Indian education is gift of britishers, hence needs some adjustments to suit the current global competition.
A small but important correction in the above quote. Indian education is not a gift of the Brits. As a matter of fact history of eduction in India dates back to its cultural heritage. Nalanda university is considered to be the worlds first university. Correct me if I am wrong.
niva
09-10 03:10 PM
My second $100 contribution towards the cause. IV! Keep up the great work.
Google Order #876958642840461
Google Order #876958642840461
vin13
03-12 03:33 PM
Unfortunately, we will never know the daily or weekly details. If you see three bills introduced in a year like you saw last year, then it is the result of lobbying effort. IV core has periodic meetings with lobbying firm and all your money goes into that. Plus several trips to DC by IV leadership, to represent YOU and ME.
Are you part of core?
Can i take that core will not even give out information on what efforts it is lobbying currently?
I wonder how i will convince some of my friends to contribute to an effort which is not shared?:confused:
Are you part of core?
Can i take that core will not even give out information on what efforts it is lobbying currently?
I wonder how i will convince some of my friends to contribute to an effort which is not shared?:confused:
more...
NNReddy
09-05 12:57 AM
I came to USA in July 1997. I did my masters here. I worked for 3 fortune 500 companies so far. I have been with one company since last 11 years. I am on EB3(mar 2003). I am a senior manager in fortune 50 company and on the path towards directorship. I wish I had green card, that didn't prevent me from having a good life and career. I brought an house 10 years ago. All I can see few more years of wait. Reg' Pappu post about action, the only action I can take is converting my case to EB2, which I tried several times within the company and it didn't work. The second action I can take is change employer. I have a good career, pay in this job, not sure if I would be able to get same one outside.
ind_game
05-20 06:37 PM
Did any of you get the same letter with the same content below .........what baffles me is the last sentence that says "The application will be reopened and the processing continued. Once the processing is completed, you will receive a notice under separate cover."
Your help is really appreciated in this.........Sorry I am little bit pessimistic here......
I think I have answered my own question...........Here are the links for similar responses from USCIS
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=25761&highlight=103.5&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21474&highlight=103.5&page=9
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23800&highlight=103.5&page=3
Your help is really appreciated in this.........Sorry I am little bit pessimistic here......
I think I have answered my own question...........Here are the links for similar responses from USCIS
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=25761&highlight=103.5&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21474&highlight=103.5&page=9
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23800&highlight=103.5&page=3
more...
SouthSky
06-02 12:50 PM
My PD EB3 01/15/2005
Applied I140 PP 05/18/2007
Approved I140 05/23/2007
Man I am screwed
I received good news on June 1, 2007 that my I-140 is approved. It was received by USCIS on May 22, 2007. Then later that day I saw the new immigration bill. If this very unreasonable bill (EB backlog) will be passed the wasting of all the money, time, stress, anxiety and hope towards the GC procedure will make the whole thing look like a bitter joke. This is beyong my wildest imagination on how bad things can go since we are all hard-working and law-abiding legal immigrants. Is it a punishment for being a good member of society?
I'm praying that it will not be given any consideration by those who have powers.
Applied I140 PP 05/18/2007
Approved I140 05/23/2007
Man I am screwed
I received good news on June 1, 2007 that my I-140 is approved. It was received by USCIS on May 22, 2007. Then later that day I saw the new immigration bill. If this very unreasonable bill (EB backlog) will be passed the wasting of all the money, time, stress, anxiety and hope towards the GC procedure will make the whole thing look like a bitter joke. This is beyong my wildest imagination on how bad things can go since we are all hard-working and law-abiding legal immigrants. Is it a punishment for being a good member of society?
I'm praying that it will not be given any consideration by those who have powers.
CADude
07-04 03:18 PM
Contact your Senator regarding unprecedented move by the Department of State.
If you all can then please contact your senator.
Below is the letter I sent to my local senator.
You can find your local senator by using this link (Enter zip code and state) - http://capwiz.com/aila2/officials/congress/?lvl=C&azip=75063&state=TX.
You can also send email from this link.
It does not matter whether this brings any value or not but there is no harm in doing this, in case you are really frustrated, troubled and sad!.
Dear Senator :
This is to bring to your attention regarding an unprecedented move by Department of State with regards to filing of adjustment of status applications.
On June 13, Department of State announced in its Visa Bulletin for July 2007 that all employment-based categories (except for the Other Workers category) for immigrant visas will be "current," (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3263.html) meaning that individuals/businesses going through the lengthy and backlogged immigrant visa or "green card" process can, throughout July, file adjustment of status applications.
The Department Of State regulations at 22 CFR 42.51 (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/22cfr42_05.html) and 8 CFR 245.1(g), allows individuals/businesses to rely on and use such information. Historically, they have relied on such information knowing that when they prepare and file such applications, they will be accepted and adjudicated.
However on July 2, 2007, The Department of State issued a new bulletin (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3263.html) with an update on July Visa Availability and USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) started rejecting adjustment of status applications for several employment-based immigration preference categories (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/VisaBulletin2Jul07.pdf), despite the fact that the published July Visa Bulletin shows that visas for these categories are available thereby violating its long-standing policy and the expectations of thousands of people, without any advance notification to the general public or issuing any notification under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Such a revision, coming in the same month in which the bulletin is issued, would be contrary to years of practice in which revisions or adjustments to the availability of immigrant visa numbers are made in the following month of before the beginning of the month, not in the same month individuals and businesses have begun preparing and submitting applications for adjustment of status.
By taking this unprecedented mid-month update, the Departments of State and Homeland Security have seriously undermined the stability and predictability of U.S. immigration law. Thousands of individuals and businesses rely on the monthly bulletins to prepare and plan for the submission of applications. In addition, individuals have taken the necessary steps to prepare and file applications for adjustment of status, including thousands of dollars of expenses to engage counsel, flights for employees to quickly obtain necessary documents and medical exams for the applications, cancellation of business and holiday travel, changes in family plans to ensure families are in the proper location, etc. This unprecedented action of the government is shocking and disturbing. It has left many in a state of disbelief, frustration, confusion, and anger.
Pursuant to Department Of State regulations 8 CFR 245.1(g), [i]f the applicant [for adjustment of status] is a preference alien, the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin will be consulted to determine whether an immigrant visa is immediately available.. Thus, when the Visa Bulletin shows that visas for most preference categories are available for applicants with priority dates on or before the listed priority date, the USCIS must accept those adjustment of status applications for adjudication. Under section 245 of the INA, an alien may apply for adjustment of status if, inter alia, (3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed. The question is what the term immediately available means. The regulation at 8 CFR 245.1(g) defines the term and instructs how to determine when an immigrant visa is immediately available under Sec. 245 of the INA.
8 CFR 245.1(g) states, An alien is ineligible for the benefits of section 245 of the Act unless an immigrant visa is immediately available to him or her at the time the application is filed. If the applicant is a preference alien, the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin will be consulted to determine whether an immigrant visa is immediately available. An immigrant visa is considered available for accepting and processing the application Form I-485 i[f] the preference category applicant has a priority date on the waiting list which is earlier than the date shown in the Bulletin (or the Bulletin shows that that numbers for visa applicants in his or her category are current). An immigrant visa is also considered immediately available if the applicant establishes eligibility for the benefits of Public Law 101-238. Information concerning the immediate availability of an immigrant visa may be obtained at any Service Office. (Emphasis added.)
Reliance on the current Visa Bulletin is well-established. In 1994, the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) published a revision to 8 CFR Part 245 in response to enactment of section 245(i) of the Act. In the Supplementary Information provided with that regulation, the INS took the opportunity to revise its definition of immediately available to be consistent with that of the Department of State.
The INS said: All applicants for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Act must have an immediately available immigrant visa number. "Immediately available" for the
purpose of accepting and processing the Form I-485 application filed by a preference alien is defined in 8 CFR 245.1(f) as being not later than the date shown in the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin. The Department of State, however, defines "immediately available" as being earlier than the date shown in the current Visa Bulletin. This rule amends 8 CFR 245.1(f) to bring the adjustment of status provision into accordance with the Department o f State's definition.
I request your prompt attention on this matter asking the Department of State for clarification on this unprecedented change which defies years of established process of individuals/businesses relying on visa bulletin to prepare and file adjustment of status applications.
Sincerely,
If you all can then please contact your senator.
Below is the letter I sent to my local senator.
You can find your local senator by using this link (Enter zip code and state) - http://capwiz.com/aila2/officials/congress/?lvl=C&azip=75063&state=TX.
You can also send email from this link.
It does not matter whether this brings any value or not but there is no harm in doing this, in case you are really frustrated, troubled and sad!.
Dear Senator :
This is to bring to your attention regarding an unprecedented move by Department of State with regards to filing of adjustment of status applications.
On June 13, Department of State announced in its Visa Bulletin for July 2007 that all employment-based categories (except for the Other Workers category) for immigrant visas will be "current," (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3263.html) meaning that individuals/businesses going through the lengthy and backlogged immigrant visa or "green card" process can, throughout July, file adjustment of status applications.
The Department Of State regulations at 22 CFR 42.51 (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/22cfr42_05.html) and 8 CFR 245.1(g), allows individuals/businesses to rely on and use such information. Historically, they have relied on such information knowing that when they prepare and file such applications, they will be accepted and adjudicated.
However on July 2, 2007, The Department of State issued a new bulletin (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3263.html) with an update on July Visa Availability and USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) started rejecting adjustment of status applications for several employment-based immigration preference categories (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/VisaBulletin2Jul07.pdf), despite the fact that the published July Visa Bulletin shows that visas for these categories are available thereby violating its long-standing policy and the expectations of thousands of people, without any advance notification to the general public or issuing any notification under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Such a revision, coming in the same month in which the bulletin is issued, would be contrary to years of practice in which revisions or adjustments to the availability of immigrant visa numbers are made in the following month of before the beginning of the month, not in the same month individuals and businesses have begun preparing and submitting applications for adjustment of status.
By taking this unprecedented mid-month update, the Departments of State and Homeland Security have seriously undermined the stability and predictability of U.S. immigration law. Thousands of individuals and businesses rely on the monthly bulletins to prepare and plan for the submission of applications. In addition, individuals have taken the necessary steps to prepare and file applications for adjustment of status, including thousands of dollars of expenses to engage counsel, flights for employees to quickly obtain necessary documents and medical exams for the applications, cancellation of business and holiday travel, changes in family plans to ensure families are in the proper location, etc. This unprecedented action of the government is shocking and disturbing. It has left many in a state of disbelief, frustration, confusion, and anger.
Pursuant to Department Of State regulations 8 CFR 245.1(g), [i]f the applicant [for adjustment of status] is a preference alien, the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin will be consulted to determine whether an immigrant visa is immediately available.. Thus, when the Visa Bulletin shows that visas for most preference categories are available for applicants with priority dates on or before the listed priority date, the USCIS must accept those adjustment of status applications for adjudication. Under section 245 of the INA, an alien may apply for adjustment of status if, inter alia, (3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed. The question is what the term immediately available means. The regulation at 8 CFR 245.1(g) defines the term and instructs how to determine when an immigrant visa is immediately available under Sec. 245 of the INA.
8 CFR 245.1(g) states, An alien is ineligible for the benefits of section 245 of the Act unless an immigrant visa is immediately available to him or her at the time the application is filed. If the applicant is a preference alien, the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin will be consulted to determine whether an immigrant visa is immediately available. An immigrant visa is considered available for accepting and processing the application Form I-485 i[f] the preference category applicant has a priority date on the waiting list which is earlier than the date shown in the Bulletin (or the Bulletin shows that that numbers for visa applicants in his or her category are current). An immigrant visa is also considered immediately available if the applicant establishes eligibility for the benefits of Public Law 101-238. Information concerning the immediate availability of an immigrant visa may be obtained at any Service Office. (Emphasis added.)
Reliance on the current Visa Bulletin is well-established. In 1994, the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) published a revision to 8 CFR Part 245 in response to enactment of section 245(i) of the Act. In the Supplementary Information provided with that regulation, the INS took the opportunity to revise its definition of immediately available to be consistent with that of the Department of State.
The INS said: All applicants for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Act must have an immediately available immigrant visa number. "Immediately available" for the
purpose of accepting and processing the Form I-485 application filed by a preference alien is defined in 8 CFR 245.1(f) as being not later than the date shown in the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin. The Department of State, however, defines "immediately available" as being earlier than the date shown in the current Visa Bulletin. This rule amends 8 CFR 245.1(f) to bring the adjustment of status provision into accordance with the Department o f State's definition.
I request your prompt attention on this matter asking the Department of State for clarification on this unprecedented change which defies years of established process of individuals/businesses relying on visa bulletin to prepare and file adjustment of status applications.
Sincerely,
more...
ags123
02-09 07:29 PM
The first bulletin with Eb1 and Eb2 spill over.
Last year:
Mar 2008- India Eb2 U
Apr 2008- India-Eb2 01 Dec 03
This year may be:
Mar 2009- India Eb2 15 Feb 04
Apr 2009- India Eb2 28 Feb 05 (My PD :))
Last year:
Mar 2008- India Eb2 U
Apr 2008- India-Eb2 01 Dec 03
This year may be:
Mar 2009- India Eb2 15 Feb 04
Apr 2009- India Eb2 28 Feb 05 (My PD :))
gsc999
09-11 06:36 PM
Seeing ur quote I remember another quote..
Though What I am going to tell is not in the context of D.C.Rally
Late Indian Prime Minister P.V.Narasimha Rao has a great quote, which he often quoted to reporters at interviews, where he was silent on many burning issues of his time and later used to say
"Not taking a decision also a decision."
----
Please stop analyzing. This is a decisive moment. Join the DC rally!
Though What I am going to tell is not in the context of D.C.Rally
Late Indian Prime Minister P.V.Narasimha Rao has a great quote, which he often quoted to reporters at interviews, where he was silent on many burning issues of his time and later used to say
"Not taking a decision also a decision."
----
Please stop analyzing. This is a decisive moment. Join the DC rally!
more...
gc_on_demand
07-15 08:12 AM
Just sent 10 USD using BOA bill pay : 7YDGQ-HNRRZ
GO IV GO...
GO IV GO...
gcisadawg
02-08 02:39 AM
If the girl is working and earning money, she has all the rights to spend the way she wants, including giving money to her parents. If she is not working, then help should be based only on humanitarian basis because we never know when one's financial situation changes. I can't understand how any girl can force her husband to spend for her parents and siblings especially when she is not earning.
more...
Radhika
07-19 10:33 AM
upgraded $20 to $50 monthly
Kodi
06-22 11:33 AM
If PD means the date you filed your LC then its May 8th, still not over 90 days.
more...
m306m
05-27 08:28 AM
^ to the top ^
texcan
09-10 10:07 AM
Guys,
here is my humble contribution of 100.
keep up the great work.
A suggestion, lets keep a tally where we are for contribution goal,
this will encourage everyone to contribute more and round off any shortfalls
in overall contribution.
Thanks
On a side note,
This is my understanding, even if there are some harsh things said
on the forum, but in all everyone appreciates the great work being done
by this group.
here is my humble contribution of 100.
keep up the great work.
A suggestion, lets keep a tally where we are for contribution goal,
this will encourage everyone to contribute more and round off any shortfalls
in overall contribution.
Thanks
On a side note,
This is my understanding, even if there are some harsh things said
on the forum, but in all everyone appreciates the great work being done
by this group.
more...
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.
for_gc
10-01 04:22 PM
This is how this law is written. The limit of 140K is for a fiscal year. With next year having its own quota.
USCIS cannot change the law.
This makes sense as well. Let us say if we had this limit for all of ten years in the past and only some of them hit the limit, then we will have this revolving balance which will keep getting carried forward and may total to 500000 or so by now.
No, thats not the intent of the law which is to restrict immigration in a given category in a given year.
USCIS cannot change the law.
This makes sense as well. Let us say if we had this limit for all of ten years in the past and only some of them hit the limit, then we will have this revolving balance which will keep getting carried forward and may total to 500000 or so by now.
No, thats not the intent of the law which is to restrict immigration in a given category in a given year.
rajuram
09-01 09:40 PM
Came in Sept 99, still waiting ....seems more like a century. Survived a major blunder by the lawyer...
god help me and all others !
god help me and all others !
gc_bucs
03-10 11:28 AM
I'm not sure if the IV members were aware of this or not.
The following is from http://www.immigration-law.com/ which in turn is quoting AILA.
"However, the report indicates that the Judiciary Committee is working on a tight schedule as the Senate Majority leader Bill Frist reportedly threatened that unless the Committee completes the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill by March 27, 2006, he would bypass the Senate Judiciary Committee and attempt to have his own Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill totally focusing on the border security and enforcement issues only passed by the full Senate. It is thus critically important that the Judiciary Committee passes the bill in one form or another by March 27, 2006. Please stay tuned to this website for the breath-taking development. "
The following is from http://www.immigration-law.com/ which in turn is quoting AILA.
"However, the report indicates that the Judiciary Committee is working on a tight schedule as the Senate Majority leader Bill Frist reportedly threatened that unless the Committee completes the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill by March 27, 2006, he would bypass the Senate Judiciary Committee and attempt to have his own Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill totally focusing on the border security and enforcement issues only passed by the full Senate. It is thus critically important that the Judiciary Committee passes the bill in one form or another by March 27, 2006. Please stay tuned to this website for the breath-taking development. "
w3313
03-31 08:20 PM
How insane you are, you are giving the credit of that to USCIS ??? I think you were sleping when people had rallies in CA and IV had 'flowers to USCIS' campaign, how about Zoe Lofergn's threat, I'm sure you don't know any thing. USCIS shares most of the responsibility of you and I being on this forum. USCIS was doing a tardy job and wasting several thousand green card numbers every year that's why DOS had to push them by making the world wide dates current. And 'no' they did not 'realize' any mistake, they did not want to get into legal trouble and get publically exposed(Zoe Lofergn asked for emails and all communication regarding Visa cut off dates). So they took the shortest and safest way to get out
I don't think insane is enough to describe that person Dard-E-Disco thought process, people know very little about the process delay's or troubles caused by the USCIS delay's. Either this personDard-E-Disco is either ignorant or doesn't know what he/she is talking about. I doubt if Dard-E-Disco knows how it would be for some one to wait 7 years for any immigration process and watch USCIS screw-up the FIFO process and how the customer service at USCIS is cannot differentiate between a RD and PD better than that I suggest this person to read the AMBUDeSMEN report if you don't what it is just google for it , after you read the report and recommendations come back and post your wise comments. I urge you to please read the ambudsmen report before making loose comments
I don't think insane is enough to describe that person Dard-E-Disco thought process, people know very little about the process delay's or troubles caused by the USCIS delay's. Either this personDard-E-Disco is either ignorant or doesn't know what he/she is talking about. I doubt if Dard-E-Disco knows how it would be for some one to wait 7 years for any immigration process and watch USCIS screw-up the FIFO process and how the customer service at USCIS is cannot differentiate between a RD and PD better than that I suggest this person to read the AMBUDeSMEN report if you don't what it is just google for it , after you read the report and recommendations come back and post your wise comments. I urge you to please read the ambudsmen report before making loose comments
No comments:
Post a Comment