wa_Saiprasad
09-01 09:25 AM
Priority date: May 2002 Eb3.
Same company
Same h1b
Same labour.
Same company
Same h1b
Same labour.
wallpaper happy easter funny cartoon.
ind_game
05-18 04:19 PM
Hi ind_game, attorney and all readers,
After reading ind_game last quote "God save AC21.....". I have following questions:
1. Do you know any one (your friend, client) used AC21 and faced same problem? Es
2. Is it true that AC-21 info don't get updated in the USCIS records?
3. If yes (2 question), then x-employer I-140 revocation will ALWAYS result in THIS kind of problems (as ind-game is facing)?
4. To attorneys only: Is AC-21 really helpful or misleading? Asking because if it don't update in USCIS records.
Please reply.
thanks,
waitingmygc
waitingmygc,
I am really sorry if my message has festered you. That was not my intention. After three months of slog and surge in frustration, I was not ready for another 2 months.
1.
I have found some case studies and I am still in touch with them...........but everybody got thru this with a good ending........I have a series of case studies in another website's forum who have faced similar issue (of course, not 2 MTRs but just 1 MTR)...........I do not think it would be wise to post them here.........
2&3.
This is not in every case. One of the members contacted me today and said he got NOID for not submitting AC21, which is according to the guidance. One of my other friend did not submit any AC 21 and he got laid off from the changed company and he did not get any notification from USCIS. He is just moving ahead without filing any AC21.
One of my other friend changed jobs twice using AC 21 and he got NOIDs both times. NOID is common and according to the guidance in the memo (Yates memo). Trust me, I have contacted so many people in the past three months, I have enough case studies in my laptop now.
After reading ind_game last quote "God save AC21.....". I have following questions:
1. Do you know any one (your friend, client) used AC21 and faced same problem? Es
2. Is it true that AC-21 info don't get updated in the USCIS records?
3. If yes (2 question), then x-employer I-140 revocation will ALWAYS result in THIS kind of problems (as ind-game is facing)?
4. To attorneys only: Is AC-21 really helpful or misleading? Asking because if it don't update in USCIS records.
Please reply.
thanks,
waitingmygc
waitingmygc,
I am really sorry if my message has festered you. That was not my intention. After three months of slog and surge in frustration, I was not ready for another 2 months.
1.
I have found some case studies and I am still in touch with them...........but everybody got thru this with a good ending........I have a series of case studies in another website's forum who have faced similar issue (of course, not 2 MTRs but just 1 MTR)...........I do not think it would be wise to post them here.........
2&3.
This is not in every case. One of the members contacted me today and said he got NOID for not submitting AC21, which is according to the guidance. One of my other friend did not submit any AC 21 and he got laid off from the changed company and he did not get any notification from USCIS. He is just moving ahead without filing any AC21.
One of my other friend changed jobs twice using AC 21 and he got NOIDs both times. NOID is common and according to the guidance in the memo (Yates memo). Trust me, I have contacted so many people in the past three months, I have enough case studies in my laptop now.
chanduv23
04-26 04:47 PM
My H1 extension is under process. I had applied in Dec 2006. My DL expires on May 6. Is it possible to renew my license with the H1 extension receipt?. Is it possible to do Premium Processing now?
Not sure about NJ, but in NY they want to see your i94 that is attached to your approval notice if you dont have a valid stamp.
You do have time for premium processing but also find out locally if you can go back with an expired DL (expired within a month or so) , in most DMV I think they permit extension of expired DL. I am not sure about it, but You may want to verify.
Not sure about NJ, but in NY they want to see your i94 that is attached to your approval notice if you dont have a valid stamp.
You do have time for premium processing but also find out locally if you can go back with an expired DL (expired within a month or so) , in most DMV I think they permit extension of expired DL. I am not sure about it, but You may want to verify.
2011 kw: easter, happy easter,
sanprabhu
07-23 11:59 AM
Along with thank yous to Chertoff, Lofgren and Gonzalez, I sent an additional thank you to Sen Cornyn. I urge all of you to do the same too.
His Address is:
517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
His Address is:
517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
more...
langagadu
09-15 09:07 PM
If you have guts talk on the open forum, why do you give REDs from the back?
Abe Kutte, you did not fill out your profile properly, Moran.
Application mailed date is 03/03/2005 and USCIS Rcvd Date is 04/03/2001.
Looks like you learned in your Ph.d to go backwards in life, Moran.Keep going back and reach 1990, you will get your GC soon. Saat me leke ja tumara sunnysurya ko bi (don't forget to buy bangles for both of you):D:D
By the way I am EB3 and I don't have intentions to port, still I support whoever eligible.
Here is the form you can fill out to express support:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?key=pfq9i31UpaJcQdUK-1PaKcg&hl=en
View the read only document here:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pfq9i31UpaJcQdUK-1PaKcg&hl=en
Abe Kutte, you did not fill out your profile properly, Moran.
Application mailed date is 03/03/2005 and USCIS Rcvd Date is 04/03/2001.
Looks like you learned in your Ph.d to go backwards in life, Moran.Keep going back and reach 1990, you will get your GC soon. Saat me leke ja tumara sunnysurya ko bi (don't forget to buy bangles for both of you):D:D
By the way I am EB3 and I don't have intentions to port, still I support whoever eligible.
Here is the form you can fill out to express support:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?key=pfq9i31UpaJcQdUK-1PaKcg&hl=en
View the read only document here:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pfq9i31UpaJcQdUK-1PaKcg&hl=en
Ramba
10-21 06:18 PM
Thanks Ramba for your insights.
Whatever the reasons - its apparent USCIS is not following the AC21 regulations and it is not fair. I believe, AC21 regulations are made with an objective of improving immigration rules for 21st century (and thus the name American Competetiveness for 21st century) and provide some mobility for the applicants while their GC applications are pending. The delay in application processing is still relevant (actually its more severe) - irrespective of whether its caused by processing or because of lack of visa numbers. AC21 regulations never mentioned about the origin of delay or the longivity of applicant with original company. Changing interpretation of a rule they made, that too without notice is unfair and maybe even unlawful.
So far I was thinking that its a case of misinformed IO rejecting I485 once they see a I140 revocation. But rejecting MTR on the grounds that employee has left the company on his/her own and so does not have intent of continuing in the job is just plain twisting of their own rules. And we need a much bigger effort - if its a case of a few misinformed USCIS employees incorrectly rejecting I485 - then it could have been fixed with a low key effort that we are doing. We are seeing more rejections based on unknown "interpretations" - and even MTR getting rejected - it kind of gives a feeling that they have a bigger agenda here and we need to fight on a bigger scale.
If a guy lawfully changed the job after 180 days of 485 filing, it is remain valid even if employer revokes already approved 140. Only solution to overcome this MTR, is taking this to court. In the case of dispute between employee and employer regarding "intent", the employee will have more leverage if he had a considerable period of employment relationship sponsor.
Whatever the reasons - its apparent USCIS is not following the AC21 regulations and it is not fair. I believe, AC21 regulations are made with an objective of improving immigration rules for 21st century (and thus the name American Competetiveness for 21st century) and provide some mobility for the applicants while their GC applications are pending. The delay in application processing is still relevant (actually its more severe) - irrespective of whether its caused by processing or because of lack of visa numbers. AC21 regulations never mentioned about the origin of delay or the longivity of applicant with original company. Changing interpretation of a rule they made, that too without notice is unfair and maybe even unlawful.
So far I was thinking that its a case of misinformed IO rejecting I485 once they see a I140 revocation. But rejecting MTR on the grounds that employee has left the company on his/her own and so does not have intent of continuing in the job is just plain twisting of their own rules. And we need a much bigger effort - if its a case of a few misinformed USCIS employees incorrectly rejecting I485 - then it could have been fixed with a low key effort that we are doing. We are seeing more rejections based on unknown "interpretations" - and even MTR getting rejected - it kind of gives a feeling that they have a bigger agenda here and we need to fight on a bigger scale.
If a guy lawfully changed the job after 180 days of 485 filing, it is remain valid even if employer revokes already approved 140. Only solution to overcome this MTR, is taking this to court. In the case of dispute between employee and employer regarding "intent", the employee will have more leverage if he had a considerable period of employment relationship sponsor.
more...
diptam
08-13 02:09 PM
lonedesi,
Any word this ?
As i posted earlier i've scheduled a teleconference today morning with my HR Head and wanted complete explanation why they aren't releasing 7001. The general HR staff didn't release 7001 for last 8 days.
The HR Head is more diplomatic guy - he said i'll sign and give you 7001 immediately but if any problem happens because of challenging USCIS via Ombudsman , he doesn't know. Basically he is resorting to "Scare Tactics" or the "Fear Mongering" that we saw in the Billary's 3 AM ad of political campaign.
How what do i do Lonedesi - Shall i go ahead and ask him for 7001 and tell him that i don't care because this is a absolutely legal and right step to question USCIS if they are not following FIFO ??
Any word this ?
As i posted earlier i've scheduled a teleconference today morning with my HR Head and wanted complete explanation why they aren't releasing 7001. The general HR staff didn't release 7001 for last 8 days.
The HR Head is more diplomatic guy - he said i'll sign and give you 7001 immediately but if any problem happens because of challenging USCIS via Ombudsman , he doesn't know. Basically he is resorting to "Scare Tactics" or the "Fear Mongering" that we saw in the Billary's 3 AM ad of political campaign.
How what do i do Lonedesi - Shall i go ahead and ask him for 7001 and tell him that i don't care because this is a absolutely legal and right step to question USCIS if they are not following FIFO ??
2010 house happy easter funny
jamesbond007
09-09 01:44 PM
Gapala made some very good analysis in his posts on this thread.
But......
Looking at the country's GDP to analyze the price of land in a few cities does not make sense. The growth in land value is not across the length and breadth of the country. It is only limited to the big cities which are experiencing the money rush.
NRI's from the US are only one piece of the puzzle who are funneling in money to India.
There are NRIs from other countries.
Then there are business people making big profits dealing with other countries.
And local business people who have a lot of black money. All of them together are keeping up the prices.
There also seems to be a change in the thinking of the Indian middle class. Most of our parents' generations were in the habit of saving up money and making purchases with the saved money.(These were savings in a bank account mind you; not investments that grew at a rate better than the inflation.)
The current middle class seems to realize that trying to save money in a bank in order to buy something is foolish since the paper money is losing its value over time. So they are either investing; or making purchases with borrowed money as long as they can make the EMI payments. Overall, the current middle class is not backing out of buying what they need for lack of money. (This trend will probably lead India in the same path as the US i.e. huge debt for everyone)
Regarding the question "why would a farmer sit on land valued at $100K, while only making about $1K by farming that land?" Its only a matter of time before they realize their fool hardiness and then they will sell. Pretty soon when the construction begins in their neighbourhood, and prices of all commodities go up so much that they can't live in their $1K income, then they will be forced to sell. Or they might get the wind of a "someone they know" who sold, and they will follow their example.
Strictly speaking about Hyderabad, there are a lot of farmers who cashed out their lands in the city outskirts. Smart ones then moved out further away from the city and bought more land there to continue their farming. Others are spending their windfall on jewellery, cars and other bling.
All that being said, it is still scary to me.
In my opinion, anyone looking to make a quick buck should not get into it at this time.
If you want to buy because you want to go back and settle there in a couple of years, then that is different.
[quote] to add to the conversation on the price -> locals are also experiencing a glut of money due to the economic boom in the last 5 years or so. Small businesses have really taken off in a big way exporting to Europe/ US. Investors in the stock market have also hit the jackpot. And, once you have money, for most Indians the safest option to invest is in property or gold.
Also better salaries all around fueled by attrition of talent to the IT sector. [quote]
This may be correct to certain extent but only the elite class and creamy layer of 1.8% of total population. When we look at the bigger picture of the country, I could not connect the dots. GDP is just above $2500 and PPP is about $3300. How in the world will you justify $200,000 to $300,000. Plus the cost of financing the purchase.
In simple terms, median home price is 100 times the GDP and life expectancy in india is 70 years. average work life span is 40 years. Home Mortgages are 15, 20 or 25 years in India which will cover only 1/4th of the median price of a home based on even anticipated high GDP growth and considering moderate increase in cost of living. Given that the risk of default is huge and banks are running at very high risk. I believe buying a house is a big gamble in India and more to that for Banks, lending is also a big gamble.
Note that according to banks, investment in apartments capitalize only over 25 years in india. (Rent vs. Own) Is this correct? Average rentals in ONLY Big cities are Rs. 12000 ($275 / month $3300 a year) to 15000 ($340 / month $4000 a year) for the same 1000 sqft 2 bedroom apartments which itself is above the GDP :). What that tells me, even the rentals are also not affordable to majority of the population. Back to captalization part 4000 * 25 = 100,000. which is half of the investment... add the alternate investment value for 25 years, capitalization will be way below 50%.
That means it will take more than 50 years to capatilize the investment. This is more that Mod average work life span of 40 years. Note that Maintenance and Taxes for 25 years excluded in above calc. Are banks stupid?
I do not know what to tell ya man! To me its really scary
A small credit crunch (crisis is not required) might bring the entire economy to floor.
fine print: (Above analysis applies only for working taxpaying people like us who does not have unaccounted money.)
But......
Looking at the country's GDP to analyze the price of land in a few cities does not make sense. The growth in land value is not across the length and breadth of the country. It is only limited to the big cities which are experiencing the money rush.
NRI's from the US are only one piece of the puzzle who are funneling in money to India.
There are NRIs from other countries.
Then there are business people making big profits dealing with other countries.
And local business people who have a lot of black money. All of them together are keeping up the prices.
There also seems to be a change in the thinking of the Indian middle class. Most of our parents' generations were in the habit of saving up money and making purchases with the saved money.(These were savings in a bank account mind you; not investments that grew at a rate better than the inflation.)
The current middle class seems to realize that trying to save money in a bank in order to buy something is foolish since the paper money is losing its value over time. So they are either investing; or making purchases with borrowed money as long as they can make the EMI payments. Overall, the current middle class is not backing out of buying what they need for lack of money. (This trend will probably lead India in the same path as the US i.e. huge debt for everyone)
Regarding the question "why would a farmer sit on land valued at $100K, while only making about $1K by farming that land?" Its only a matter of time before they realize their fool hardiness and then they will sell. Pretty soon when the construction begins in their neighbourhood, and prices of all commodities go up so much that they can't live in their $1K income, then they will be forced to sell. Or they might get the wind of a "someone they know" who sold, and they will follow their example.
Strictly speaking about Hyderabad, there are a lot of farmers who cashed out their lands in the city outskirts. Smart ones then moved out further away from the city and bought more land there to continue their farming. Others are spending their windfall on jewellery, cars and other bling.
All that being said, it is still scary to me.
In my opinion, anyone looking to make a quick buck should not get into it at this time.
If you want to buy because you want to go back and settle there in a couple of years, then that is different.
[quote] to add to the conversation on the price -> locals are also experiencing a glut of money due to the economic boom in the last 5 years or so. Small businesses have really taken off in a big way exporting to Europe/ US. Investors in the stock market have also hit the jackpot. And, once you have money, for most Indians the safest option to invest is in property or gold.
Also better salaries all around fueled by attrition of talent to the IT sector. [quote]
This may be correct to certain extent but only the elite class and creamy layer of 1.8% of total population. When we look at the bigger picture of the country, I could not connect the dots. GDP is just above $2500 and PPP is about $3300. How in the world will you justify $200,000 to $300,000. Plus the cost of financing the purchase.
In simple terms, median home price is 100 times the GDP and life expectancy in india is 70 years. average work life span is 40 years. Home Mortgages are 15, 20 or 25 years in India which will cover only 1/4th of the median price of a home based on even anticipated high GDP growth and considering moderate increase in cost of living. Given that the risk of default is huge and banks are running at very high risk. I believe buying a house is a big gamble in India and more to that for Banks, lending is also a big gamble.
Note that according to banks, investment in apartments capitalize only over 25 years in india. (Rent vs. Own) Is this correct? Average rentals in ONLY Big cities are Rs. 12000 ($275 / month $3300 a year) to 15000 ($340 / month $4000 a year) for the same 1000 sqft 2 bedroom apartments which itself is above the GDP :). What that tells me, even the rentals are also not affordable to majority of the population. Back to captalization part 4000 * 25 = 100,000. which is half of the investment... add the alternate investment value for 25 years, capitalization will be way below 50%.
That means it will take more than 50 years to capatilize the investment. This is more that Mod average work life span of 40 years. Note that Maintenance and Taxes for 25 years excluded in above calc. Are banks stupid?
I do not know what to tell ya man! To me its really scary
A small credit crunch (crisis is not required) might bring the entire economy to floor.
fine print: (Above analysis applies only for working taxpaying people like us who does not have unaccounted money.)
more...
ashutrip
06-21 01:16 PM
Link to post at IV (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=86268&postcount=5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU
hair happy easter funny cartoon.
gbof
03-01 09:15 PM
bump...so united nations may post
Chi_shark
One of my co-worker had a info-pass this friday and the IO told him similar comments to the one which you heard....not sure what to infer out of these comments......
My IV friends:
Begining April we should see significant movement and EB2 should see many approvals.:D I am not vdlRAO but I expect my approval by Aug/Sept this year-:D:D:D-: a wishful thinking. Say: Amen !!!
Chi_shark
One of my co-worker had a info-pass this friday and the IO told him similar comments to the one which you heard....not sure what to infer out of these comments......
My IV friends:
Begining April we should see significant movement and EB2 should see many approvals.:D I am not vdlRAO but I expect my approval by Aug/Sept this year-:D:D:D-: a wishful thinking. Say: Amen !!!
more...
GCDream
07-06 07:27 AM
Jugged it
hot happy easter funny quotes.
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.
more...
house Happy+easter+funny+jokes
yibornindia
11-25 01:51 PM
The lawyer I am working with also said the same thing. If 485 is denied in error (whatever is the reason, AC21 or not), one can file MTR and also continue working on EAD. Since the 485 was denied in error, the employment while MTR is being filed, pending will NOT be counted as unauthorised employment. If you read RG forums, he gave exact similar opinion.
I agree with Chandu, we should try to get this from CIS. Just don't know how:(
I am on EAD with an employer who doesn't understand or willing to work with any immigration issues. If my 485 will get denied in error, I will surely loose the Job, as leave without pay is also not an option for me. I wonder if I loose my job this way, will CIS consider this after an MTR or will again reject my 485 stating 'no job' as a reason?
I agree with Chandu, we should try to get this from CIS. Just don't know how:(
I am on EAD with an employer who doesn't understand or willing to work with any immigration issues. If my 485 will get denied in error, I will surely loose the Job, as leave without pay is also not an option for me. I wonder if I loose my job this way, will CIS consider this after an MTR or will again reject my 485 stating 'no job' as a reason?
tattoo stock vector : Happy Easter
NKR
09-11 04:14 PM
I m in ...They really dont know what they are doing ...How hard is it to find pending applications in thier database ?
Move to 2006 and approve 2006 cases and move it back to 2003 ...wow they really need help
This is frustating, I am yet to recover from the shock, I have started preparing to file premium H1 renewal next month. My PD is current but I have no hope of my 485 getting approved this month. I feel betrayed.
Move to 2006 and approve 2006 cases and move it back to 2003 ...wow they really need help
This is frustating, I am yet to recover from the shock, I have started preparing to file premium H1 renewal next month. My PD is current but I have no hope of my 485 getting approved this month. I feel betrayed.
more...
pictures happy easter funny jokes.
rkm
07-11 08:01 AM
Very Good News for EB2-I.
dresses happy easter funny pics. happy
jkays94
07-20 01:21 PM
How many though contacted their Senators for this ammendment ? Chances are that Numbers USA probably put in more calls than the proponents of this measure. The least one can do is let your Senator know of your disappointment and let those who voted in favor of your appreciation otherwise if one is silent how is the Senator to know if it impacts their constituents.
more...
makeup Happy Easter
sam2006
09-13 12:02 PM
Thank You wolfsappi kanaihya
as Promised
My 100$
Confirmation Number: 5X810871WS2653XXX
Remember
ITS NOW OR NEVER
as Promised
My 100$
Confirmation Number: 5X810871WS2653XXX
Remember
ITS NOW OR NEVER
girlfriend stock photo : Happy Easter.
qualified_trash
05-31 01:51 PM
Fermat's Last Theorem will be proved before anyone can come up with an explanation for the functioning of the BECs.
hairstyles happy easter funny quotes.
ItIsNotFunny
09-19 07:54 AM
thanks for answering.
i am not married. i have explored the possibility of doing this with friend(s) but decided that would like to do this independently. so i guess i have to figure out this owner/employee dual role problem.
any experience on this?
This is exactly why I am planning to open a company that can work as a pool for people who can use AC21, keep almost all the rate they are getting from market without having Legal Issues. I have atleast couple of people joining the pool immediately.
i am not married. i have explored the possibility of doing this with friend(s) but decided that would like to do this independently. so i guess i have to figure out this owner/employee dual role problem.
any experience on this?
This is exactly why I am planning to open a company that can work as a pool for people who can use AC21, keep almost all the rate they are getting from market without having Legal Issues. I have atleast couple of people joining the pool immediately.
NNReddy
04-11 11:29 PM
Can someone on EAD start a S-Corp or LLC? IF SO WHICH ONE IS BETTER S-CORP OR LLC? PLEASE ADVISE
skillet
06-22 01:51 PM
I know they have been saying this from Mid May. Lets see. I guess HOPE is the only answer!!
No comments:
Post a Comment