zerozerozeven
07-11 09:25 AM
PD - Jul 07
Any hopes for me in the Sep bulletin? hope they move it by another 14 to 15 months ...USCIS...pls...my wife badly needs an EAD to start working
Any hopes for me in the Sep bulletin? hope they move it by another 14 to 15 months ...USCIS...pls...my wife badly needs an EAD to start working
wallpaper dances,Karina Smirnoff
RNGC
06-25 11:46 AM
well said...to put in a nutshell "Desire and Inovation is flushed by immigration wait ...."
This is what I think America loses due to delay in green card process. I can say this from my own experience. People with advanced degrees in Science and Technology have to keep doing same job to maintain status for 8 - 10 years since changing job / company reset's their GC process. When a guy comes to US for education the average age is around 23 - 24 years. MS completed by 25. Most guys at that time have burning desire to do something new and innovative (either in job or starting own business). But the most fortune 100 companies do not sponsor H1B or GC (Example Raytheon, Toyota, Lexmark .... based on my personal experience as electrical engineer) so you end up compromising with career to maintain status and work for companies that sponsor H1B ( future career prospects take a backseat). Then after 8 - 10 years when you get GC you already are married and possibly kids to look after you are already burnt out and want to keep working in the same desk/ clerical job that you have been doing for so many years. So its a lose lose situation to all neither government gains from the GC (by which they hope to make US a more innovative place) nor the immigrants since by then all they can think is a full time job, home and 401K.
This is what I think America loses due to delay in green card process. I can say this from my own experience. People with advanced degrees in Science and Technology have to keep doing same job to maintain status for 8 - 10 years since changing job / company reset's their GC process. When a guy comes to US for education the average age is around 23 - 24 years. MS completed by 25. Most guys at that time have burning desire to do something new and innovative (either in job or starting own business). But the most fortune 100 companies do not sponsor H1B or GC (Example Raytheon, Toyota, Lexmark .... based on my personal experience as electrical engineer) so you end up compromising with career to maintain status and work for companies that sponsor H1B ( future career prospects take a backseat). Then after 8 - 10 years when you get GC you already are married and possibly kids to look after you are already burnt out and want to keep working in the same desk/ clerical job that you have been doing for so many years. So its a lose lose situation to all neither government gains from the GC (by which they hope to make US a more innovative place) nor the immigrants since by then all they can think is a full time job, home and 401K.
a2006
07-05 03:21 PM
It is always an option for any one with in their org, but if his point is wrong, then IV core leadership should prove him that they are not sitting idle or moving very very slow.
Every one starting their own organization or asking to do so doesn't solve the purpose.
Why cant he start an initiative and take it to completion and show everybody that he can do something. IV is for everybody just complaining wouldn't take us far. :confused:
Every one starting their own organization or asking to do so doesn't solve the purpose.
Why cant he start an initiative and take it to completion and show everybody that he can do something. IV is for everybody just complaining wouldn't take us far. :confused:
2011 Karina Smirnoff#39;s Playboy
tampa2006
07-18 09:14 PM
I have contributed my bit by signing in for $50 montly contribution. I hope that we will make IV a grassroot movement.
more...
legalVoice
06-03 12:06 PM
Canadian_Dream, I think your interpretation is wrong..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.�Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the [Insert title of Act] and were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think what AILA, our core group and other attorneys are trying to say is that as long as you filed before May 15, 2007 you will be fine regardless of whether your petition is pending or approved. There is no dispute about this point. Any applications that were filed after May 15, 2007 will become null and void the day this bill is signed by the president to make it a law. The 'effective date' ( Oct 1, 2008 ) does not apply for applications filed after May 15, 2007. I will be glad if you can prove me wrong :)
Well this is very confusing.
What if a person files the I-140 after May 15th and his/her I-140 is approved. Later assume that I-485 date becomes current for that particular person (before Oct 2008), he/she files for the AOS/I-485 (before Oct 2008). While the I-485 petition is pending the date Oct 2008 comes what happens then? Will this nulify the filed I-140?
Thanks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.�Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the [Insert title of Act] and were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think what AILA, our core group and other attorneys are trying to say is that as long as you filed before May 15, 2007 you will be fine regardless of whether your petition is pending or approved. There is no dispute about this point. Any applications that were filed after May 15, 2007 will become null and void the day this bill is signed by the president to make it a law. The 'effective date' ( Oct 1, 2008 ) does not apply for applications filed after May 15, 2007. I will be glad if you can prove me wrong :)
Well this is very confusing.
What if a person files the I-140 after May 15th and his/her I-140 is approved. Later assume that I-485 date becomes current for that particular person (before Oct 2008), he/she files for the AOS/I-485 (before Oct 2008). While the I-485 petition is pending the date Oct 2008 comes what happens then? Will this nulify the filed I-140?
Thanks
amitga
02-26 04:08 PM
Hopefully this center would be processing 485 backlogs with the same rate by end of this year.
more...
anilsal
12-18 05:35 PM
Apparently, we were pretty pretty close to getting retrogression eradicated in the lame duck session, according to an IV core member.
Now based on that, can you lose heart?
I think we should continue calling Sen.Cornyn's office and keep him motivated to get the SKIL bill tabled and cleared in the next congress. ;)
Now based on that, can you lose heart?
I think we should continue calling Sen.Cornyn's office and keep him motivated to get the SKIL bill tabled and cleared in the next congress. ;)
2010 stunner Karina Smirnoff
vishwak
10-22 08:24 AM
Could you please provide some more information regarding this porting from EB3 to EB2?
Check this Thread...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum88-priority-dates-transfers-and-post-140-approval-options/18721-eb3-to-eb2-porting.html
Check this Thread...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum88-priority-dates-transfers-and-post-140-approval-options/18721-eb3-to-eb2-porting.html
more...
vandanaverdia
09-09 02:06 PM
My husband & me are flying from Seattle & will be there at the rally!
hair Karina Smirnoff Playboy Cover
vik352
09-11 04:17 PM
This sounds like a great idea. It conveys our message and is funny which is why it will be picked up by media, that is exactly what we need. I am in.
more...
Libra
09-10 04:50 PM
thank you meandmygc please post your info on this thread someone will contact you. thanks.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12441
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12441
hot Karina Smirnoff#39;s Playboy
ek_bechara
06-06 08:47 PM
Just contributed 100 USD. I know the money will go far and also that IV needs more money to get us where we want to be. Come on people, lets do it.
100 USD will buy you freedom.
100 USD will buy you freedom.
more...
house Karina Smirnoff Poses Nude For
indio0617
03-08 12:29 PM
Beppen, I joined the conference a little late and heard of Sen. Brownback's amendments for extension of J1 visa rule and no cap for nurses/physical therapists in H1. They will reconvene at 2.00 again and present more amendments if there are any
Hope this helps
Nothing happens when I click on the capital hearings link.... ? Is it on c-span too.?
Hope this helps
Nothing happens when I click on the capital hearings link.... ? Is it on c-span too.?
tattoo “If Karina posed naked,
indio0617
03-09 11:02 AM
Still talking on asylum....
more...
pictures KARINA SMIRNOFF#39;S quot;Playboyquot;
Macaca
06-18 10:51 AM
Please post your concerns in Employment Based (EB) Skilled Immigration Applicants (http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?boardid=1042&threadid=314286&boardsparam=Page%3D3)
dresses Karina Smirnoff will appear in
WillIBLucky
12-18 02:59 PM
I think you do have to change your ideas in this case. Its very simple we cannot do what you plan to do. Lobbying is the only way for us. Illegals did that because they did not anything to loose. We are not in that situation, GC would be nice to have else we can go home or another country and we can survive.
So instead of waisting our time in talking about this, we should try to add members and contribute. I know you are an active member but I am just telling.
first, I don't know what you mean by "Senior Member like you coming up with this idea". Seniority on this site I think is by how long the have been registered. Second, even if it means older members, what does age have to do with this idea?
I have already said that most IV members (clearly you are one) are opposed to this.
My thoughts happen to be different from yours, and I dont plan on changing my ideas anytime soon.
Of course for this to work there has to be a signficant number of participants, otherwise actually nothing is going to work. And even with significant participation, there are no guarantees: look at how many people called Sen Sessions, but still made no difference.
Last, dont you guys get vacation?? Who is talking abut losing money? If you are paid hourly then dont take part.
and if you dont agree you dont need me to tell you dont be a part of this.
But, as mentioned many, many, many times before, I am for this idea, or something that gets attention in a big way.
So instead of waisting our time in talking about this, we should try to add members and contribute. I know you are an active member but I am just telling.
first, I don't know what you mean by "Senior Member like you coming up with this idea". Seniority on this site I think is by how long the have been registered. Second, even if it means older members, what does age have to do with this idea?
I have already said that most IV members (clearly you are one) are opposed to this.
My thoughts happen to be different from yours, and I dont plan on changing my ideas anytime soon.
Of course for this to work there has to be a signficant number of participants, otherwise actually nothing is going to work. And even with significant participation, there are no guarantees: look at how many people called Sen Sessions, but still made no difference.
Last, dont you guys get vacation?? Who is talking abut losing money? If you are paid hourly then dont take part.
and if you dont agree you dont need me to tell you dont be a part of this.
But, as mentioned many, many, many times before, I am for this idea, or something that gets attention in a big way.
more...
makeup Karina Smirnoff, Playboy cover
sajikg
02-04 12:19 AM
I am from Tennessee..My labor PD is July 2002(regular), was forwarded to Phylly from atlanta regional after recruitement was done. got 45 day letter in feb of 2005. I haven't heard from them since. anyone in the same boat with similar Priority dates?
girlfriend karina-smirnoff-gi.jpg
mygc2006
01-06 02:26 PM
Guys, My PD is Aug 02 and I am still waiting for my LC approval :mad: i know a lot of guys in 2001 havent got their approval yet.
hairstyles Karina Smirnoff on the Red
pd_recapturing
11-24 05:21 PM
I left my GC sponser employer 3 months ago and joined new employer on EAD. I spoke to the new company's attorney to file H1B after 2 months of joining. She said that since I have completed 6 years of my H1B so it does not matter if I am on H1B or on EAD as none of them will provide safety net if something goes wrong on 485. Suddenly, after 15 days, I got an email from my Lawyers's office saying that my new company has given permission to them to apply a H1B extn for me and asked me to send the required docs. I am not sure what prompted them to apply my H1B as I had already given up H1B thing and was happy with EAD. I dont know, it might be something to do with charging fee from my new employer or something. Bottomline is no one knows about it and may be even USCIS might not have this scenario in their rule book.
One more thing, in one of the conversations with my new attorney, she mentioned that I can still work on EAD if 485 gets denied because of AC21 reason and MTR has been sent. She said, unless, 485 is denied because of some criminal reason, u can continue working during the MTR period. so another twist??
One more thing, in one of the conversations with my new attorney, she mentioned that I can still work on EAD if 485 gets denied because of AC21 reason and MTR has been sent. She said, unless, 485 is denied because of some criminal reason, u can continue working during the MTR period. so another twist??
sandiboy
08-13 05:47 PM
congrats.
This is the first receipt i am noticing for an application received on July 2nd at 7:55AM and signed by R. Williams.
All other recipts so far were either received at 9 AM or 10:25 Am or so (july 2nd, 3rd, 5th etc) but none of them were at 7:55 AM.
Please see my last post couple of pages back. I also filed on Jul 2nd 7:55AM
This is the first receipt i am noticing for an application received on July 2nd at 7:55AM and signed by R. Williams.
All other recipts so far were either received at 9 AM or 10:25 Am or so (july 2nd, 3rd, 5th etc) but none of them were at 7:55 AM.
Please see my last post couple of pages back. I also filed on Jul 2nd 7:55AM
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment