desigirl
01-31 09:32 AM
Congratulation to 9years and Vayumahesh. Thank you both for documenting your journey. My EB2 perm was applied from the new company i have joined and it is approved this month. Hopefully i should be applying for I-140 next month.
I have applied my 485 in July 07 but i was not married at that time. I am married now and my my wife is on H1B. When should i add her or amend my I-485.
Thanks
When you become current and before you get your GC approval notice, you should file 485 for your wife.
Disclaimer: Not an attorney.
I have applied my 485 in July 07 but i was not married at that time. I am married now and my my wife is on H1B. When should i add her or amend my I-485.
Thanks
When you become current and before you get your GC approval notice, you should file 485 for your wife.
Disclaimer: Not an attorney.
wallpaper hot Arnold Schwarzenegger
Libra
09-10 03:09 PM
thanks manugee for contribution and consideration for rally.
Asian
08-10 10:44 AM
No. It is true to some extent that we are paying more taxes.
Take my case for an example. My kid is not an American citizen. She moved with us when she was a baby and currently under H-4 status. So she could not obtain social security number that is good for "authorized to work". Without the SSN, we were not eligible for certain child tax credit, which was hundreds of dollars. I tried an ITIN but I got a formal response from IRS that the child still needs to have a SSN to be eligible for the credit.
If you ever filed your tax return yourself and have a kid, you will know what I mean.
just one correction:
I do not think the above is true.
Take my case for an example. My kid is not an American citizen. She moved with us when she was a baby and currently under H-4 status. So she could not obtain social security number that is good for "authorized to work". Without the SSN, we were not eligible for certain child tax credit, which was hundreds of dollars. I tried an ITIN but I got a formal response from IRS that the child still needs to have a SSN to be eligible for the credit.
If you ever filed your tax return yourself and have a kid, you will know what I mean.
just one correction:
I do not think the above is true.
2011 early arnold schwarzenegger photos. arnold schwarzenegger
DDash
07-20 02:38 PM
I set it up for 50 USD reoccuring contributions.
Cheers!
Cheers!
more...
desi3933
07-06 05:52 PM
See what I was saying. They are not supposed to grant CP appointments and approvals in July per the regulations. They have decided to bend the rules to approve the currently pending 485s and CPs. They came up with this lame excuse that since the visas were already shipped out to the consular posts ................yada yada. Point is as I said they can't do 18K CP applicatrions in a day at the consulates the way they seem to have done for the 485s. Even this I am not sure.
I doubt whether they have sent out all 60K 485 approvals either, they probably will in the course of the next month or thereabouts.
I'll say it again, they want 485s out but they don't want them in for whatever reason. It is getting clearer.
Incorrect.
The visa number is requested and alloted at the time of scheduling interview for immigrant visa for CP. If the interview results in declining the visa, then visa number is sent back to DoS. This is standard practice.
Typically for all July interviews, visa number is already allocated (in May/June). So these applicants can be still issued immigrant visa (aka green card) if they clear the interview.
_____________________
Not a legal advice.
I doubt whether they have sent out all 60K 485 approvals either, they probably will in the course of the next month or thereabouts.
I'll say it again, they want 485s out but they don't want them in for whatever reason. It is getting clearer.
Incorrect.
The visa number is requested and alloted at the time of scheduling interview for immigrant visa for CP. If the interview results in declining the visa, then visa number is sent back to DoS. This is standard practice.
Typically for all July interviews, visa number is already allocated (in May/June). So these applicants can be still issued immigrant visa (aka green card) if they clear the interview.
_____________________
Not a legal advice.
vpadman
01-14 10:29 PM
I have received a mail from USCIS regarding the emergency AP. They want evidence regarding this emergency AP.
I am getting this for business travel and will get a letter from my company. However, is there any specific format to this letter?
If any of you have obtained an AP for business travel, please advise.
Thanks
I am getting this for business travel and will get a letter from my company. However, is there any specific format to this letter?
If any of you have obtained an AP for business travel, please advise.
Thanks
more...
maddipati1
11-19 11:09 PM
This scenarios is for those who used all 6 years on H1 and got H1 extension due to a pending AOS application. they may have EADs too..
Ron Gocher quotes:
"Again, to be clear, my point is that if your AOS is denied, you immediately lose all eligibility for post sixth year extensions of H status. All time spent in H status counts against the six year limit. If you burn up time in H status while you are waiting for an AOS adjudication, you may well make it impossible to go back into H status if your AOS is denied."
My interpret...
Rule 1 :
> The max limit for H1 is only 6 years.
> You can only extend H1 beyond 6 years if there is a pending AOS
this means if there is no pending AOS, u r not eligible for H1.
On thing is clear, if AOS denial is valid, then thats it, no more H1 (after 6yrs)
but surprisingly Ron doesnt use the same logic for EAD too.
> EAD is also given as a temp relief for those who has pending AOS
so if there is no pending AOS, no more EAD too.
he thinks EAD is valid even after AOS valid Denial.
THe BIG QUESTION is, If AOS is wrongly denied and MTR is open,
What is the status of the dude?
Is the status AOS, coz its been denied already...
But again, if the dude's out of status due to AOS denial,
how come CIS allow to file MTR? Coz they know the guy who is
filing MTR is out-of-status due to AOS denial :-)
Its like a software u tested a lot with all kind of scenarios,
but there is one scenario still not tested.
Like in software, the dudes who initially wrote the code and the dudes who initially spcified requirements, are long gone to a different jobs. and after a few years (5,10 etc), a new set of dudes trying to wonder why this scenarios is missed, coz the whole biz process is already changed totally.
so, the dudes who wrote these rules and regulations are long gone and retired. and there are hell lot of things changed afterwards like AC21 etc etc.
thats is why systems need to be re-evaluated in a regular basis.
can this shit be any more tangled.... :-)
Ron Gocher quotes:
"Again, to be clear, my point is that if your AOS is denied, you immediately lose all eligibility for post sixth year extensions of H status. All time spent in H status counts against the six year limit. If you burn up time in H status while you are waiting for an AOS adjudication, you may well make it impossible to go back into H status if your AOS is denied."
My interpret...
Rule 1 :
> The max limit for H1 is only 6 years.
> You can only extend H1 beyond 6 years if there is a pending AOS
this means if there is no pending AOS, u r not eligible for H1.
On thing is clear, if AOS denial is valid, then thats it, no more H1 (after 6yrs)
but surprisingly Ron doesnt use the same logic for EAD too.
> EAD is also given as a temp relief for those who has pending AOS
so if there is no pending AOS, no more EAD too.
he thinks EAD is valid even after AOS valid Denial.
THe BIG QUESTION is, If AOS is wrongly denied and MTR is open,
What is the status of the dude?
Is the status AOS, coz its been denied already...
But again, if the dude's out of status due to AOS denial,
how come CIS allow to file MTR? Coz they know the guy who is
filing MTR is out-of-status due to AOS denial :-)
Its like a software u tested a lot with all kind of scenarios,
but there is one scenario still not tested.
Like in software, the dudes who initially wrote the code and the dudes who initially spcified requirements, are long gone to a different jobs. and after a few years (5,10 etc), a new set of dudes trying to wonder why this scenarios is missed, coz the whole biz process is already changed totally.
so, the dudes who wrote these rules and regulations are long gone and retired. and there are hell lot of things changed afterwards like AC21 etc etc.
thats is why systems need to be re-evaluated in a regular basis.
can this shit be any more tangled.... :-)
2010 Arnold Schwarzenegger
pcs
07-05 03:13 PM
Keep it up !!!!!!!!
more...
polapragada
09-14 05:36 PM
Looks like some people will need to get their PhD awards 'overturned'!
Gctest, Pallavi79 etc present a faulty hypothesis and case to mask and promote their myopic self-interests.
e.g. "Eb2 people are highly qualified compared to EB3" - Nowhere in US immigration-based legislation do we find such support for such a categorical assertion.
EB categories are EMPLOYMENT BASED - simply put, the requirements of the job determine EB category. Not whether one is smarter than the other.
There is another 10+ page thread on this very topic where this issue has been examined threadbare. Based on current law there is nothing illegal in this porting practice. Also, there is no place for 'ethical' categorization in the letter of the law.
Porting is a legally supported practice which is tied to LABOR and JOB requirements, not to one's esteemed sense of self worth.
There are numerous BUSINESS reasons why EB3 to EB2 porting is allowed. Why not focus on other forms of irrational immigration practice like the 7% quotas which amount to discrimination based on national origin?
Please read my above post you might get an answer
Gctest, Pallavi79 etc present a faulty hypothesis and case to mask and promote their myopic self-interests.
e.g. "Eb2 people are highly qualified compared to EB3" - Nowhere in US immigration-based legislation do we find such support for such a categorical assertion.
EB categories are EMPLOYMENT BASED - simply put, the requirements of the job determine EB category. Not whether one is smarter than the other.
There is another 10+ page thread on this very topic where this issue has been examined threadbare. Based on current law there is nothing illegal in this porting practice. Also, there is no place for 'ethical' categorization in the letter of the law.
Porting is a legally supported practice which is tied to LABOR and JOB requirements, not to one's esteemed sense of self worth.
There are numerous BUSINESS reasons why EB3 to EB2 porting is allowed. Why not focus on other forms of irrational immigration practice like the 7% quotas which amount to discrimination based on national origin?
Please read my above post you might get an answer
hair And Arnold Schwarzenegger
northstar
09-11 10:44 PM
Contributed $200 just now through Google
more...
govindk
07-14 02:32 PM
Genius...Great work!
Sent....payment Transaction Number is 411666815
------------------------------------------
Contributed so far $200 + $5(today)
Sent....payment Transaction Number is 411666815
------------------------------------------
Contributed so far $200 + $5(today)
hot #1 Arnold Schwarzenegger
chanduv23
09-12 01:53 PM
I am in too...How can we organize all the members...70,000 is a lot of people, Any thing done effectively and efficiently will make an impact.
That's the main issue we are facing. People come on discussion forums and talk big, but when it comes to actual execution - it is very few people who actually do things and there is no regulation.
Thats why IV created state chapters where people can organize themselves and follow directives from our lobbyists and collective work towards campaigns
That's the main issue we are facing. People come on discussion forums and talk big, but when it comes to actual execution - it is very few people who actually do things and there is no regulation.
Thats why IV created state chapters where people can organize themselves and follow directives from our lobbyists and collective work towards campaigns
more...
house Arnold Schwarzenegger The Last
immi_twinges
07-20 04:02 PM
Senator Kennedy gave big speeches on immigration.
he talks about amnesty to people who stayed illegally for 10 years
How about staying legally for 10 years...
The Democrats falsely accused the anti-amnesty forces of "opposing immigration" and "racism." Actually more Democrats voted Nay.
I though Kennedy was pro immigration...looks like he just cares about illegal immigration..
Lets ask the so called pro immigration senators who voted naey...why they did it
Arent they aware of the USCIS wasting so many visas and plight of legal immigrants
They want to convert illegals to legal...
Lets ask them to First fix the Legal immigration:mad:
he talks about amnesty to people who stayed illegally for 10 years
How about staying legally for 10 years...
The Democrats falsely accused the anti-amnesty forces of "opposing immigration" and "racism." Actually more Democrats voted Nay.
I though Kennedy was pro immigration...looks like he just cares about illegal immigration..
Lets ask the so called pro immigration senators who voted naey...why they did it
Arent they aware of the USCIS wasting so many visas and plight of legal immigrants
They want to convert illegals to legal...
Lets ask them to First fix the Legal immigration:mad:
tattoo Arnold Schwarzenegger
bluekayal
08-23 04:54 PM
Rest easy folks:
Mayorkas said he was determined to “get it right and get it fast.” “The community deserves consistency,” he said. “These are our customers, and we are committed to improving customer service.”
The latest example of the changes wrought by Director Mayorkas is an opportunity to allow the public to comment on interim guidance memorandums before they becomes effective in final form. This type of pre-effective-date chance to comment never happened before with the old INS or the pre-Mayorkas USCIS. The early-peek opportunity for comment allows the agency to withdraw with dignity intact from a position that stakeholders may show is contrary to law or legitimate business practices. For example, USCIS is now accepting comments on a guidance memo with a dry title but a topic of great significance to many prospective green-card applicants with high levels of accomplishment: “Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions.”
This particular guidance memo arises from a debunking the agency received from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, C.A.9 (Cal.), March 04, 2010 (NO. 07-56774). The Court in Kazarian held that USCIS (in this case the Administrative Appeals Office) may not “unilaterally impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements” without support in the Immigration and Nationality Act or agency regulations.
While Kazarian dealt with EB-1 (extraordinary ability or achievement) green-card eligibility criteria, the interim agency guidance cited extends this also to the EB-2 immigrant visa category for exceptional ability aliens. In my view, USCIS should have issued a guidance memorandum more broadly. Stakeholder feedback should have been issued on a guidance memorandum (which I’d be happy to craft upon request) entitled “Illegality of Unilaterally Imposing Novel Substantive or Evidentiary Requirements.”
Nation of immigrators - A public policy blog on our dysfunctional immigration system � The Dark Sides of Immigration Fame and Anonymity (http://www.nationofimmigrators.com/?p=349)
Mayorkas said he was determined to “get it right and get it fast.” “The community deserves consistency,” he said. “These are our customers, and we are committed to improving customer service.”
The latest example of the changes wrought by Director Mayorkas is an opportunity to allow the public to comment on interim guidance memorandums before they becomes effective in final form. This type of pre-effective-date chance to comment never happened before with the old INS or the pre-Mayorkas USCIS. The early-peek opportunity for comment allows the agency to withdraw with dignity intact from a position that stakeholders may show is contrary to law or legitimate business practices. For example, USCIS is now accepting comments on a guidance memo with a dry title but a topic of great significance to many prospective green-card applicants with high levels of accomplishment: “Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions.”
This particular guidance memo arises from a debunking the agency received from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, C.A.9 (Cal.), March 04, 2010 (NO. 07-56774). The Court in Kazarian held that USCIS (in this case the Administrative Appeals Office) may not “unilaterally impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements” without support in the Immigration and Nationality Act or agency regulations.
While Kazarian dealt with EB-1 (extraordinary ability or achievement) green-card eligibility criteria, the interim agency guidance cited extends this also to the EB-2 immigrant visa category for exceptional ability aliens. In my view, USCIS should have issued a guidance memorandum more broadly. Stakeholder feedback should have been issued on a guidance memorandum (which I’d be happy to craft upon request) entitled “Illegality of Unilaterally Imposing Novel Substantive or Evidentiary Requirements.”
Nation of immigrators - A public policy blog on our dysfunctional immigration system � The Dark Sides of Immigration Fame and Anonymity (http://www.nationofimmigrators.com/?p=349)
more...
pictures early arnold schwarzenegger
gc28262
07-06 09:14 AM
I think it is time we threw away the concept that democracy is the best.
Look at Obama the socialist and anti-immigrant law makers in this country who are playing to the gallery. Are they doing any good for this country ?
I always prefer an open self nominated leader to a democratically elected leader.
OP should work with IV core/even get involved in a serious conversation with core team to promote his ideas. I am sure core is open to suggestions and entertain discussions from well meaning members.
Look at Obama the socialist and anti-immigrant law makers in this country who are playing to the gallery. Are they doing any good for this country ?
I always prefer an open self nominated leader to a democratically elected leader.
OP should work with IV core/even get involved in a serious conversation with core team to promote his ideas. I am sure core is open to suggestions and entertain discussions from well meaning members.
dresses Arnold Schwarzenegger, 38th
pappu
08-10 09:18 PM
When can we expect these Op-eds to be published? Will you be posting some kind of update here to let us know?
we have got only the ones on this thread till now. i am hoping few others may also send. there were many people who volunteered to write by sending me a response PM.
i want to wait for some time and see the different topics covered and decide the media outlets based on that.
if you/anyone has some good suggestions of sending these op-eds to media let me know too.
we have got only the ones on this thread till now. i am hoping few others may also send. there were many people who volunteered to write by sending me a response PM.
i want to wait for some time and see the different topics covered and decide the media outlets based on that.
if you/anyone has some good suggestions of sending these op-eds to media let me know too.
more...
makeup arnold schwarzenegger 2011
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.
girlfriend early arnold schwarzenegger
baburob2
03-09 10:03 AM
i believe the way it is going to proceed is if they don't have time to discuss everything they will discuss the rest in the senate floor. however if the conflicting ones like illegal aliens one, enforcement ones are resolved then this bill might go to the floor and the remaining ones would be discussed. hence if till tile 3 is over then this bill might be considered for vote on teh senate floor. this is my understnading based on what i heard.
hairstyles Arnold Schwarzenegger
amitjoey
07-13 04:45 PM
Please add little personal details, Post it with a stamp, no need for certified copy. Add your name, address and contact no, in a letter format. so you can get a response.
gcformeornot
07-20 07:47 AM
...
payal_nag
11-15 12:29 PM
Live in Tustin Ranch and work in Irvine, Orange County.
No comments:
Post a Comment