a_paradkar
07-14 01:39 PM
Done.
wallpaper hot Bmw 525d parma emilia
cjain
07-06 04:03 PM
AILA has reported a very interesting or confusing DOS LegalNet Office letter which one of the members received towards the fact that the consular posts had already been allocated their numbers for the month of July prior to EB visa numbers becoming unavailable on July 2 and that the posts may continue to use their July allocations of EB numbers, and continue to issue Immigrant Visas for the rest of this month, July, for those applicants who were scheduled for IV interviews in July. Hm.....................................
IN2US
07-06 02:33 PM
Everyone from Janitors to Execs have been working for the last week to approve those 66K cases.
--- Good one :D
--- Good one :D
2011 2001 (51 Plate) BMW 525D
akp22
05-27 07:59 PM
$100 today
more...
acecupid
09-05 04:21 PM
I agree with the above posts, they are stealing money by having stupid charges. Why do you need to charge a customer Rs.400 for changing his account password. It is absolutely ridiculous! Compare that to a bank in US, you just go online and change the password. Also, they have 2 passwords one called Account password to login to the account and another called Transaction password for making any transactions. So the more number of passwords you have the more you tend to forget either of them and they can charge you Rs.400 for each password reset!:mad:
ItIsNotFunny
10-24 04:26 PM
Good job GCWonder & cnachu2.
I got few PM from senior members that they sent mails too. Please do not loose the momentum - keep sending mails.
I got few PM from senior members that they sent mails too. Please do not loose the momentum - keep sending mails.
more...
Hope_GC
07-18 01:33 PM
Scheduled a Recurring $50 Payment monthly...
2010 this BMW 525d F10 204hp.
sirinme
07-15 12:47 PM
Contributions for both self and spouse!
more...
desi485
11-26 02:00 AM
bkn96, Thanks a lot for this information.
Guys, I was just wondering whether we can talk to Ron Gotcher/Greg Siskind to take up our case with AILA or USCIS. Ron Gotcher seems to be very very unhappy about this wrong doing of USCIS. Any suggestion?
Someone pointed that AILA recently discussed this issue with cis, and rule is still under development. There was a link posted to a PDF somewhere on this/similar thread. I will try to find and post a link here!
Guys, I was just wondering whether we can talk to Ron Gotcher/Greg Siskind to take up our case with AILA or USCIS. Ron Gotcher seems to be very very unhappy about this wrong doing of USCIS. Any suggestion?
Someone pointed that AILA recently discussed this issue with cis, and rule is still under development. There was a link posted to a PDF somewhere on this/similar thread. I will try to find and post a link here!
hair Bmw 525d Interior.
ItIsNotFunny
10-22 09:42 AM
Hey, tx for the PM, I sent the email, do we need to send a letter too?>
I think emails are fine for now. We want to acknowledge them and trying to avoid embarassing them.
I think emails are fine for now. We want to acknowledge them and trying to avoid embarassing them.
more...
bobzibub
04-01 04:48 PM
I'm not saying we don't have rights, but what you are asking are the internal workings of a government agency.
You can't even vote. You can't even just change employers without hassle. You can't even just leave the country and come without proper documents. You can't even apply for a student loan. You can be deported any time you have a problem. You can't even renew your driver's license without showin proof of proper residency.
Even with GC your rights are still not as good as a US citizen.
Yes we do have rights.
But the government is only answerable to a certain level. You cannot ask for information of the internal workings of a government. That's not going to happen.
We are the USCIS's customers. They wouldn't exist without us. We have a right to make sure that they are being run effectively and efficiently. They have a responsibility to be transparent in their operations, because without that transparency there can be no accountability.
I don't believe that asking about government processes is beyond our rights. Sure we may not be US citizens, but if an American was in my country being given the run-around by a government organization in my country, I would expect that my country would answer their questions too.
You can't even vote. You can't even just change employers without hassle. You can't even just leave the country and come without proper documents. You can't even apply for a student loan. You can be deported any time you have a problem. You can't even renew your driver's license without showin proof of proper residency.
Even with GC your rights are still not as good as a US citizen.
Yes we do have rights.
But the government is only answerable to a certain level. You cannot ask for information of the internal workings of a government. That's not going to happen.
We are the USCIS's customers. They wouldn't exist without us. We have a right to make sure that they are being run effectively and efficiently. They have a responsibility to be transparent in their operations, because without that transparency there can be no accountability.
I don't believe that asking about government processes is beyond our rights. Sure we may not be US citizens, but if an American was in my country being given the run-around by a government organization in my country, I would expect that my country would answer their questions too.
hot Kamp;N Filter Bmw 330d,525d,530d
waitin_toolong
07-20 05:19 PM
Guys,
The calculations below is not to scare anyone but it may very well a reality. Based on the assumptions below, some people may have to wait up to 20 months to get a EAD card: Ouch!
A Total I-485 Applicants: 750000 Applicants
B Each EAD processing time: 5 Minutes
C Total processing hrs: 62500 Hours
(Calculations: AxB/60)
D Daily productive Hours: 5 Hours
(It is a government body!)
E Total Man Days (Business Days): 12500 Man Days
(Calculations: C/D)
F EAD Workforce: 30 People
G Total Business Days: 417 Days
(Calculations: E/F)
H Average Business Days in a month: 21 Days
I Total Clearing Time : 20 Months
(Calculations: G/I)
If you are determined to make sensational calculations and postings then who can stop you, but seriously stop assuming things.
1st assumption: 750000 applicants (realistic figure near 500,000)
2nd assumption: all are adults (why would kids need EAD, and there would be several in that category)
3. it takes only 5 mts could take more or less who knows,
4. work hrs
5. number of people.
Stop being so negative and sensationalizing everything. There are more genuine problems to talk about.
The calculations below is not to scare anyone but it may very well a reality. Based on the assumptions below, some people may have to wait up to 20 months to get a EAD card: Ouch!
A Total I-485 Applicants: 750000 Applicants
B Each EAD processing time: 5 Minutes
C Total processing hrs: 62500 Hours
(Calculations: AxB/60)
D Daily productive Hours: 5 Hours
(It is a government body!)
E Total Man Days (Business Days): 12500 Man Days
(Calculations: C/D)
F EAD Workforce: 30 People
G Total Business Days: 417 Days
(Calculations: E/F)
H Average Business Days in a month: 21 Days
I Total Clearing Time : 20 Months
(Calculations: G/I)
If you are determined to make sensational calculations and postings then who can stop you, but seriously stop assuming things.
1st assumption: 750000 applicants (realistic figure near 500,000)
2nd assumption: all are adults (why would kids need EAD, and there would be several in that category)
3. it takes only 5 mts could take more or less who knows,
4. work hrs
5. number of people.
Stop being so negative and sensationalizing everything. There are more genuine problems to talk about.
more...
house [A VENDRE] - BMW 525D Touring
cbadari99
06-24 11:44 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/us/25engineer.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
"The dean of the College of Engineering at Georgia Tech, Don P. Giddens, noted an additional factor limiting the recruitment of highly trained engineers into military jobs: more than half the engineering doctoral candidates at American universities are from abroad and so are ineligible for most jobs requiring security clearances."
"The dean of the College of Engineering at Georgia Tech, Don P. Giddens, noted an additional factor limiting the recruitment of highly trained engineers into military jobs: more than half the engineering doctoral candidates at American universities are from abroad and so are ineligible for most jobs requiring security clearances."
tattoo Bmw 525d E39. dezmembrez
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...
pictures BMW 525d Touring
mita
09-10 05:31 PM
^BUMP^
I am not sure if USCIS will move beyond April 2004 until Jan 2009 due to the holidays and election and as someone said they want to take it easy. Even if they move the dates it does'nt help unless they approve cases with certain process in place.
I am not sure if USCIS will move beyond April 2004 until Jan 2009 due to the holidays and election and as someone said they want to take it easy. Even if they move the dates it does'nt help unless they approve cases with certain process in place.
dresses a rear view of the BMW 525d
jetguy777
01-21 11:10 AM
AabTuAgaGC and hopefullegalimmigrant Could you advise what date USCIS received your application for Advance Parole? Thanks
more...
makeup The BMW 525d Touring is about
![bmw 525d. [A VENDRE] - BMW 525D Touring](http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/3453/525d3jv8.jpg "[A VENDRE] - BMW 525D Touring")
eb3_nepa
07-05 02:28 PM
Called up Sen Casey's office and I was told that in the local office they cant do much about a mass enquiry but he volunteered to do it on a personal basis for my case in particular.
girlfriend dresses BMW 525d SE, 5 Doors,
nlssubbu
08-14 03:04 PM
The following are the reason for Eb3 situation.
Anyone who have 3 year or 4 year degree can apply. So Other country also there is a demand. So it is nearly impossible to get other country quota. For a few thousand green cards atleast 100k persons might have applied till 2008 in EB3. So there is not much chance for improvement. It may move a few months to 2 years in 2009.If some bill is passed then most persons will get relief. But still some chances for recapture bill in house. But the reaction at Senate to be seen. Next year they may give a best attempt for CIR so that Congressmen will get a chance to do overtime also for hot news in Media. As usual CIR is unpredictable at best.
EB3 does not require a 4 year degree. It consists of people helping in cooking, full time baby sitters from third world countries, helpers in grocery stores, farm workers, nurses, etc as well. This is why the participation of EB3 folks here is very less and IV attracts only the technical work force. I would suggest a mass campaign to attract this crowd as well to IV for support. Even if they are brought, due to the low wage rate I do not think how much of contribution that will result for IV.
This is my observation so far.
Anyone who have 3 year or 4 year degree can apply. So Other country also there is a demand. So it is nearly impossible to get other country quota. For a few thousand green cards atleast 100k persons might have applied till 2008 in EB3. So there is not much chance for improvement. It may move a few months to 2 years in 2009.If some bill is passed then most persons will get relief. But still some chances for recapture bill in house. But the reaction at Senate to be seen. Next year they may give a best attempt for CIR so that Congressmen will get a chance to do overtime also for hot news in Media. As usual CIR is unpredictable at best.
EB3 does not require a 4 year degree. It consists of people helping in cooking, full time baby sitters from third world countries, helpers in grocery stores, farm workers, nurses, etc as well. This is why the participation of EB3 folks here is very less and IV attracts only the technical work force. I would suggest a mass campaign to attract this crowd as well to IV for support. Even if they are brought, due to the low wage rate I do not think how much of contribution that will result for IV.
This is my observation so far.
hairstyles 2007 BMW 525d Touring
ind_game
05-15 09:53 AM
Hi ind_game,
For me, 1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2009 as I have the hard copy) has typo. I think your 09/04/2009 should be 2007.
Please correct.
My apologies........Can I correct the thread message now........it looks I cannot.......anyway here is the updated....thanks ak_2006
Here is the scoop.
from US Congresswoman's office, an immigration specialist spoke to their liaison at the Nebraska Service Center.
Liaison confirmed the following:
1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2007 as I have the hard copy)
2. I-140 revocation in Feb, 2009 ( he has not provided the day of the month, but from LUD I have it strongly pointing to 02/03/2009)
I have not told the Congresswoman's office about the I-140 revocation. Just mentioned that it might have happened as I have left the company.
3. Liaison did confirm that even after the I-140 being withdrawn I am eligible for adjustment thru AC21.
4. Liaison did agree that if the I-140 was revoked within the stipulated time given in AC21, Nebraska�s decision to deny the I-485 may have been in error. (which in my case is true)
Immigration specialist at the Congresswoman's office is going to contact the Director of NSC to review this matter with a supervisor
Unanswered questions:
1. If the Liaison can see that my I-140 is approved on 09/04/2007, why is that the adjudicating officer is responding with a denial on 09/04/2007 and subsequent denial of I-485?
2. Are they both not looking at my information with same interface?
Conclusion:
Atleast in my case it looks deliberate and intentional.
For me, 1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2009 as I have the hard copy) has typo. I think your 09/04/2009 should be 2007.
Please correct.
My apologies........Can I correct the thread message now........it looks I cannot.......anyway here is the updated....thanks ak_2006
Here is the scoop.
from US Congresswoman's office, an immigration specialist spoke to their liaison at the Nebraska Service Center.
Liaison confirmed the following:
1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2007 as I have the hard copy)
2. I-140 revocation in Feb, 2009 ( he has not provided the day of the month, but from LUD I have it strongly pointing to 02/03/2009)
I have not told the Congresswoman's office about the I-140 revocation. Just mentioned that it might have happened as I have left the company.
3. Liaison did confirm that even after the I-140 being withdrawn I am eligible for adjustment thru AC21.
4. Liaison did agree that if the I-140 was revoked within the stipulated time given in AC21, Nebraska�s decision to deny the I-485 may have been in error. (which in my case is true)
Immigration specialist at the Congresswoman's office is going to contact the Director of NSC to review this matter with a supervisor
Unanswered questions:
1. If the Liaison can see that my I-140 is approved on 09/04/2007, why is that the adjudicating officer is responding with a denial on 09/04/2007 and subsequent denial of I-485?
2. Are they both not looking at my information with same interface?
Conclusion:
Atleast in my case it looks deliberate and intentional.
logiclife
07-06 12:13 PM
I have changed the thread title.
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