bitzbytz
07-20 04:05 PM
If I am first in the list, base don the claculation, I will get it in 5 minutes,Thats true, the last person will have to wait for 20 months:)
komaragiri
08-02 04:23 PM
Hopefully they can as well speed up their process for July filers.
Wake up Texas !!:)
Wake up Texas !!:)
gcformeornot
11-08 04:56 PM
please
she81
04-30 02:14 PM
At the end of July. I'm not aware of National processing centers. Are there still labor applications stuck there?
more...
songlan
04-25 09:16 AM
Pushing too much requests into amendends means to get more risks to be removed /denied. Please satisfiy with 1/2 what you are dreaming of. Moreover, IV core group is too much busy with the existing goals (Existing goal = file 485 despite the "current date" , h4 wifes get EAD ...). IV core group need energy for the more realistic goal.
yagw
07-11 02:08 PM
The per country limit was not adhered to even in the 3rd quarter. Remember how EB2 India rose like a phoenix from Unavailable to April 2004? Once they determine that there are enough visas for spillover, the per country limits don't exist. The question is how they decide to distribute it among the retrogressed countries.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4310.html
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4310.html
more...
jonty_11
07-06 05:44 PM
7/06/2007: Temporary Restraining Order of July Visa Bulletin Lawsuit Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois as Separate from AILF Class Action
* On July 6, 2007, the attorneys of Azulay, Horn & Seiden lawfirm filed this lawsuit individually in Illinois.
Ok here I go again in this Chicken and Egg situation......
Now that someone filed a lawsuit to invalidate the July VB, which BTW is still CURRENT.......it could invalidate the CURRENT sttatus....of all Eb categories....precisely what DOS USCIS wants....
My head is spinning.......Beer anyone?
* On July 6, 2007, the attorneys of Azulay, Horn & Seiden lawfirm filed this lawsuit individually in Illinois.
Ok here I go again in this Chicken and Egg situation......
Now that someone filed a lawsuit to invalidate the July VB, which BTW is still CURRENT.......it could invalidate the CURRENT sttatus....of all Eb categories....precisely what DOS USCIS wants....
My head is spinning.......Beer anyone?
NKR
04-03 08:13 AM
First, try to ask the question properly with specifics. It could easily be understood the way I understood it. U ask a dumb question and u get a dumb answer . Also, there was never any sort of communication between ssnd and myself. That itself shows who's dumb.
Looks like all the dumb ppl r getting lots of green dots. Amazing forum...IV ki jai.
Oh, you couldn�t grasp the obvious and telling me that my question had to be more specific and on top of that you agree that your answer was dumb, lol. No wonder you are dumb.
BTW ssnd and I are not rude in calling you dumb. It�s ok to call a spade a spade.
The bagel is tasting soooo good this morning, yummy�
Looks like all the dumb ppl r getting lots of green dots. Amazing forum...IV ki jai.
Oh, you couldn�t grasp the obvious and telling me that my question had to be more specific and on top of that you agree that your answer was dumb, lol. No wonder you are dumb.
BTW ssnd and I are not rude in calling you dumb. It�s ok to call a spade a spade.
The bagel is tasting soooo good this morning, yummy�
more...
saimrathi
07-12 10:34 AM
Where did you get your DL renewed? Which state? :confused:
As someone else pointed out, if you don't drive will he/ she won't get a H1B?
This does not make sense.
I just renewed my DL in and BMV did not even ask for my visa/ passport validity and they issued me 5 years renewal (my visa expires in Oct 2008).
I can understand that based on your visa expiry date, BMV may issue only limited time DL.
I know each state has jurisdiction on these matters but there should be basically similar approach.
As someone else pointed out, if you don't drive will he/ she won't get a H1B?
This does not make sense.
I just renewed my DL in and BMV did not even ask for my visa/ passport validity and they issued me 5 years renewal (my visa expires in Oct 2008).
I can understand that based on your visa expiry date, BMV may issue only limited time DL.
I know each state has jurisdiction on these matters but there should be basically similar approach.
funny
09-15 04:27 PM
People, most of us here are just afraid that they will get red dots, be ridiculed for their beliefs. But the things is; If we don't fight for our rights, who will. We have to defend our place in the queue, which at the moment is at substantial risk.
I want everybody to get their GCs. but now interfiling/porting is hurting out position in the queue.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
My dear friend "GCtest"
There are two really important threads going on on IV.
1.IV call campaign HR 5882
2. Give me a HIGH FIVE.
Before using IV's resoruces and knowledge available from all the members available on IV, did it ever occur to you to contribute "+vly" on these 2 threads...I am asking +ve contribution here... because u are really good at contributing -vely on the forum.
I want everybody to get their GCs. but now interfiling/porting is hurting out position in the queue.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
My dear friend "GCtest"
There are two really important threads going on on IV.
1.IV call campaign HR 5882
2. Give me a HIGH FIVE.
Before using IV's resoruces and knowledge available from all the members available on IV, did it ever occur to you to contribute "+vly" on these 2 threads...I am asking +ve contribution here... because u are really good at contributing -vely on the forum.
more...
webm
04-30 03:28 PM
Testimony is going in full mood/swing..questions by questions...to uscis/dos..
jetflyer
12-15 11:13 AM
What a nobel idea. IV has thousands of members and we all are with you. What we don't seems to have is LEADER. Yes, we are lacking leaders like you, If you start I am sure all IV members will follow you. Just drop us a line when you are ready to start. We all are counting on you.
J.F.
Dear Friends,
What about if some of us will go for hunger strike in front of USCIC building? may be the will listen to us then.
please dont give reds if you dont like it, just ignore it. man I am very frustrated with the situation.
MC
J.F.
Dear Friends,
What about if some of us will go for hunger strike in front of USCIC building? may be the will listen to us then.
please dont give reds if you dont like it, just ignore it. man I am very frustrated with the situation.
MC
more...
langagadu
09-15 11:19 AM
:mad::mad::mad::mad: Rey Moran, Who the heck gave you Ph.D. Definitely you don't have ability to think. Idiot, give your Ph.d back, you need to start thinking of washing your rusted brain, Moran.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
are bhagwan... kash maine substitue labor use kiya hota....
I would have been approved by then...
Been here since 1996 and have a doctorate .. but still in EB2.. and i don't regret it .... but i don't want anymore line jumping for sure.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
are bhagwan... kash maine substitue labor use kiya hota....
I would have been approved by then...
Been here since 1996 and have a doctorate .. but still in EB2.. and i don't regret it .... but i don't want anymore line jumping for sure.
vdlrao
06-10 12:48 PM
It is simple. If the number of pending EB2 Apps before April 1st 2004 (India and China combined) is less than the number of spill over visa numbers, then there will be some forward movement in EB2 next month. If not, the dates will remain the same or may even retrogress.
what I am trying to say is USCIS works effectively for EB2 category as because they dont have much work in other EB categories.
what I am trying to say is USCIS works effectively for EB2 category as because they dont have much work in other EB categories.
more...
pappu
12-20 01:17 PM
Thank you Yabadaba. IV was able to help publish your op-ed.
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=7b1a82abac88e4509c386 03143688521
Others, if you would like to use the might of your pen, pls write articles and op-eds and Iv would try to get them published.
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=7b1a82abac88e4509c386 03143688521
Others, if you would like to use the might of your pen, pls write articles and op-eds and Iv would try to get them published.
sandiboy
08-02 04:01 PM
This is from my lawyer:
Where is my application for adjustment of status filed?
All employment based adjustment of status applications are filed at the Nebraska Service Center (NSC). The NSC will keep half of the cases it receives and send half to the Texas Service Center . There is no way of indicating which Service Center you want your case adjudicated at. Once the receipt notices are received you will know where your case is pending. All family based adjustment of status applications are filed at the National Benefits Center.
Where is my application for adjustment of status filed?
All employment based adjustment of status applications are filed at the Nebraska Service Center (NSC). The NSC will keep half of the cases it receives and send half to the Texas Service Center . There is no way of indicating which Service Center you want your case adjudicated at. Once the receipt notices are received you will know where your case is pending. All family based adjustment of status applications are filed at the National Benefits Center.
more...
desi3933
08-13 04:02 PM
I don't think we can do 'anything' about EB3 I. We are 100% at the mercy of USA (politicians, USCIS, DOS or whoever).
We can write letters, emails, fax, contribute to IV but nothing is gonna help. This is the fact!
We are not going to get our GC when we need it but only when they give it. And, it is not going to happen anytime sooner.
The options that we have in front of us (which would work for sure):
1. Live with this. Don't come to any forum, don't think about VISA bulletin. Take your Gc when it comes to your doorstep. May be by then, we may not need it. We may be tired of being on the same job and GC may not bring any motivation to our career.
2. Move over to EB2 - If possible, take all the pains of changing job, place of living, unpredictability in PERM queue and I140 queue and move over to EB2. But you never know. One of our Indian brothers might have just won a lawsuit to stop us from moving over!! In that sense, EB3 I is worst than illegals. Least wanted legals in the USA!!
3. Get out of this country - Give up the American dream and come to reality and start a new dream. May be Canadian dream or Australian dream...
We are stuck. And, nobody is going to help us. This is hard fact. Believe it.
Wearing my optimist hat, the only thing I can think of is, whether IV supports it or not (reason I say this is - once we talk about this -the core is going to refer to poor 'high five' collection or 'low number of people calling congressmen' etc. Not blaming them. They have their own issues. For us, the problems are bigger. IV core will not do anything for EB3 I exclusive) some 50-100 EB3 I applicants should go to DC and meet high officials, CHC folks and every department that is influential to EB immigrant VISA and make them understand our plight. No guarantee that this would work. But, we will get a first hand response that may help atleast help us to chose from one of 3 options listed above.
The only practical solution, IMHO, is to move over to EB-2. Like they say, If you can't beat them, join them.
______________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
N-400 Oath Date on Aug 19th, 2008
We can write letters, emails, fax, contribute to IV but nothing is gonna help. This is the fact!
We are not going to get our GC when we need it but only when they give it. And, it is not going to happen anytime sooner.
The options that we have in front of us (which would work for sure):
1. Live with this. Don't come to any forum, don't think about VISA bulletin. Take your Gc when it comes to your doorstep. May be by then, we may not need it. We may be tired of being on the same job and GC may not bring any motivation to our career.
2. Move over to EB2 - If possible, take all the pains of changing job, place of living, unpredictability in PERM queue and I140 queue and move over to EB2. But you never know. One of our Indian brothers might have just won a lawsuit to stop us from moving over!! In that sense, EB3 I is worst than illegals. Least wanted legals in the USA!!
3. Get out of this country - Give up the American dream and come to reality and start a new dream. May be Canadian dream or Australian dream...
We are stuck. And, nobody is going to help us. This is hard fact. Believe it.
Wearing my optimist hat, the only thing I can think of is, whether IV supports it or not (reason I say this is - once we talk about this -the core is going to refer to poor 'high five' collection or 'low number of people calling congressmen' etc. Not blaming them. They have their own issues. For us, the problems are bigger. IV core will not do anything for EB3 I exclusive) some 50-100 EB3 I applicants should go to DC and meet high officials, CHC folks and every department that is influential to EB immigrant VISA and make them understand our plight. No guarantee that this would work. But, we will get a first hand response that may help atleast help us to chose from one of 3 options listed above.
The only practical solution, IMHO, is to move over to EB-2. Like they say, If you can't beat them, join them.
______________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
N-400 Oath Date on Aug 19th, 2008
theMan
09-10 09:17 PM
$100 from me. Paypal conf. number , 1D295909LU764330T
Sorry, can't make it to the rally due to prior commitments. All the best to all of us.
Sorry, can't make it to the rally due to prior commitments. All the best to all of us.
ingegarcia
06-18 01:05 PM
Is your case being audited?
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.
gchopes
12-12 05:10 PM
the visa bulletin song for EB2/3 I...yeh jo des hai tera..pardes hain tera...
No comments:
Post a Comment