samay
07-14 06:59 AM
Dear Sir/Madam
Thank you for helping us.
Scenario:
If one is working with company A on H1 and Company B applies a future employment GC for the person. The Person received EAD/AP for the 485 which is pending from 1 year through company B. Also have a valid and stamped H1 for 3 years from company A.
Now in this case:
1) Is there a Law or Need to Join company B since EAD has been issued?
2) Can one stick with company A even after getting EAD till he gets GC? In that case is AC21 required to remain with Company A?
3) Can one Join new Company X and use AC21?
I really appriciate your community service, thanks in advance!
1. No since the Green card is for a future job.
2.Yes since you have a valid H-1B and you do not need to invoke the AC21.
3. Yes.
Thank you for helping us.
Scenario:
If one is working with company A on H1 and Company B applies a future employment GC for the person. The Person received EAD/AP for the 485 which is pending from 1 year through company B. Also have a valid and stamped H1 for 3 years from company A.
Now in this case:
1) Is there a Law or Need to Join company B since EAD has been issued?
2) Can one stick with company A even after getting EAD till he gets GC? In that case is AC21 required to remain with Company A?
3) Can one Join new Company X and use AC21?
I really appriciate your community service, thanks in advance!
1. No since the Green card is for a future job.
2.Yes since you have a valid H-1B and you do not need to invoke the AC21.
3. Yes.
wallpaper Milwaukee Summerfest 2010.
WFGC2006
04-04 02:06 PM
What are your options if the Canadian PR expires (go to CA get PR and come back to US) and you are still in the US ? OR say you are in your 4th/5th year of CA PR and then you then desire to go to CA, can you re-apply for the Canadian PR ? If you can, what is the procedure .... ?
Anyone who know abt this, please respond.
The current rule is that: in order to maintain your PR, you have to be physically in Canada for two years in any 5 year period (to apply citizenship, 3 years consecutively). So technically you are still fine if you are on your 3rd year working in the U.S. after landing date (which is the date you enter into the border using the immigration visa granted).
If you have the maple card in hand, there is absolutely nothing to worry about. However, if you are like me who got out of CA and came back to the US after landing without securing the card, there are still ways. The maple card is only needed for re-entry if you take a commercial flight or a commercial bus. However, if you drive your own vehicles and cross the border, then you only need your landing document ("the white paper"). Another option is to apply so-called "Travel Document" through CA consulate in the U.S. But be prepared that the official will grill you for your intention because he/she knows that 1) you are exploring the loophole of CA immigration law and use your PR status as the fall-back plan for your dashed American dream; 2) it's their duty to deny your visa if they determine that you will not be able to fulfill the residency requirement ("2 out of 5 year" rule) ONCE YOU ENTER CA (this is some rule open to abuse as basically the official determines what you WILL do in the future).
Anyone who know abt this, please respond.
The current rule is that: in order to maintain your PR, you have to be physically in Canada for two years in any 5 year period (to apply citizenship, 3 years consecutively). So technically you are still fine if you are on your 3rd year working in the U.S. after landing date (which is the date you enter into the border using the immigration visa granted).
If you have the maple card in hand, there is absolutely nothing to worry about. However, if you are like me who got out of CA and came back to the US after landing without securing the card, there are still ways. The maple card is only needed for re-entry if you take a commercial flight or a commercial bus. However, if you drive your own vehicles and cross the border, then you only need your landing document ("the white paper"). Another option is to apply so-called "Travel Document" through CA consulate in the U.S. But be prepared that the official will grill you for your intention because he/she knows that 1) you are exploring the loophole of CA immigration law and use your PR status as the fall-back plan for your dashed American dream; 2) it's their duty to deny your visa if they determine that you will not be able to fulfill the residency requirement ("2 out of 5 year" rule) ONCE YOU ENTER CA (this is some rule open to abuse as basically the official determines what you WILL do in the future).
django.stone
06-15 02:12 PM
i like this idea and you have my support.
People need to understand that you need to give some to win some. I would like to propose to IV a kind of proposal that would be a win win for both the immigrants and the US.
1. It is meaningless to fight for the rights of ALL the visa holders. Any such attempts would always be resisted by the anti immigrant lobby.
2. Acknowledge their fundamental point of view that jobs are being stolen due to wage destruction and perpetual visa fraud by these outsourcing companies. Of course resist all these racist BS types. They are the just the noise in the immigration debate.
My Proposal
1. Support the Grassley bill in its entirety. If you notice it is those outsourcing companies that are making all the noise but not the genuine companies that use H1B for innovation purposes. These outsourcing neither follow the rules or spirit of the H1B/L1 visas nor provide much of innovation to the market place. There is no point in expecting them to police themselves. We have tried this and they are not here to play by the rules.
2. In fact, provide the concessions to eliminate the H1/L1 visas for these outsourcers. In return, request visa number recapture for the H1Bs who are employed directly by the companies. I strongly believe that if you are a H1B employed directly by the company (not outsourcing cos), it is unlikely that you would be underskilled or underpaid. A few minor expections may be there but we can safely ignore these exceptions.
3. Again, people may argue that some of the consultants are highly skilled too. If that were the case, they would have been or would be hired into a permenant position soon once the Grassley bill passes. No company would like to let go of a good performer irrespective of whether they are permenant employees or contractors.
If you notice, some people echo the sentiment that the Grassley bill would lead to more offshoring. That in my opinion is absolute BS. Only low level jobs would be offshored and in my opinion a h1b visa should not be used for these low level jobs. The high skilled jobs would always stay here and they would not be under wage pressure. The best and the fittest would survive and get the same.
I strongly believe that by providing these concessions, atleast the skilled immigrants would be sparred the trauma of this mindless wait for a GC. I wish to reiterate here that I am neither anti immigration nor anti any ethnicity. I am simply trying to reiterate that we need to lose some to win some. There is no point in the Indian style of negotiations of win all or win none. Let us adapt to the give some take some style of concession building. In this process, it is okay to give up on the interests of those blood sucking outsourcers. For this, I am willing to provide financial, logistical and intellectual support.
By following this route, we prevent wage destruction which is what the anti immigrant lobby is clamouring about. It is a win win for all and a lose situation for the blood suckers
People need to understand that you need to give some to win some. I would like to propose to IV a kind of proposal that would be a win win for both the immigrants and the US.
1. It is meaningless to fight for the rights of ALL the visa holders. Any such attempts would always be resisted by the anti immigrant lobby.
2. Acknowledge their fundamental point of view that jobs are being stolen due to wage destruction and perpetual visa fraud by these outsourcing companies. Of course resist all these racist BS types. They are the just the noise in the immigration debate.
My Proposal
1. Support the Grassley bill in its entirety. If you notice it is those outsourcing companies that are making all the noise but not the genuine companies that use H1B for innovation purposes. These outsourcing neither follow the rules or spirit of the H1B/L1 visas nor provide much of innovation to the market place. There is no point in expecting them to police themselves. We have tried this and they are not here to play by the rules.
2. In fact, provide the concessions to eliminate the H1/L1 visas for these outsourcers. In return, request visa number recapture for the H1Bs who are employed directly by the companies. I strongly believe that if you are a H1B employed directly by the company (not outsourcing cos), it is unlikely that you would be underskilled or underpaid. A few minor expections may be there but we can safely ignore these exceptions.
3. Again, people may argue that some of the consultants are highly skilled too. If that were the case, they would have been or would be hired into a permenant position soon once the Grassley bill passes. No company would like to let go of a good performer irrespective of whether they are permenant employees or contractors.
If you notice, some people echo the sentiment that the Grassley bill would lead to more offshoring. That in my opinion is absolute BS. Only low level jobs would be offshored and in my opinion a h1b visa should not be used for these low level jobs. The high skilled jobs would always stay here and they would not be under wage pressure. The best and the fittest would survive and get the same.
I strongly believe that by providing these concessions, atleast the skilled immigrants would be sparred the trauma of this mindless wait for a GC. I wish to reiterate here that I am neither anti immigration nor anti any ethnicity. I am simply trying to reiterate that we need to lose some to win some. There is no point in the Indian style of negotiations of win all or win none. Let us adapt to the give some take some style of concession building. In this process, it is okay to give up on the interests of those blood sucking outsourcers. For this, I am willing to provide financial, logistical and intellectual support.
By following this route, we prevent wage destruction which is what the anti immigrant lobby is clamouring about. It is a win win for all and a lose situation for the blood suckers
2011 summerfest logo milwaukee.
injrav
08-03 12:52 PM
This only proves that this is an important immigrant issue. Pappu should help educate every one.
Hi TravInd
keep going on man
you are the Pappu of this Thread
Hi TravInd
keep going on man
you are the Pappu of this Thread
more...
ArkBird
03-30 02:17 AM
Agreed but consider the other options. Lalu? Mulayam?? Mayawati???
I will have tears of joy in my eyes if BJP get the majority but I know it will never happen... :(
Snathan,Arkbird
Please do understand MMS brought economic reforms when he was finance minister in P.V Narasimha Rao's govt.People thought country would see the same in 2004 when MMS was made PM. But Sonia Gandhi didn't give him that freedom.We didn't see any reforms in these 5 years.
Opting for MMS is like saying I won't take Sonia/Rahul but would take them if they came with a wrapper called MMS. That's what MMS is.
All those voting for MMS in the poll might as well vote for Rahul if you are bent on only congress party for communal/other reasons of your own.
MMS is not even fighting these elections.As per congress party sources Sonia doesn't want to announce Rahul as PM candidate because if congress loses then Rahul has to take the blaim(which will affect his charisma..huh our leaders run not qualifications but charisma and even urban/rural people fall for that).If congress wins MMS will be replaced with Rahul citing health or some other issue within no time.
I can understand rural masses but educated skilled people falling for the tactics of unskilled Sonia is something.No wonder she is going great.
I will have tears of joy in my eyes if BJP get the majority but I know it will never happen... :(
Snathan,Arkbird
Please do understand MMS brought economic reforms when he was finance minister in P.V Narasimha Rao's govt.People thought country would see the same in 2004 when MMS was made PM. But Sonia Gandhi didn't give him that freedom.We didn't see any reforms in these 5 years.
Opting for MMS is like saying I won't take Sonia/Rahul but would take them if they came with a wrapper called MMS. That's what MMS is.
All those voting for MMS in the poll might as well vote for Rahul if you are bent on only congress party for communal/other reasons of your own.
MMS is not even fighting these elections.As per congress party sources Sonia doesn't want to announce Rahul as PM candidate because if congress loses then Rahul has to take the blaim(which will affect his charisma..huh our leaders run not qualifications but charisma and even urban/rural people fall for that).If congress wins MMS will be replaced with Rahul citing health or some other issue within no time.
I can understand rural masses but educated skilled people falling for the tactics of unskilled Sonia is something.No wonder she is going great.
senthil1
06-15 11:54 PM
Outsourcing is bad for not only for US citizens but also for future H1bs and GC aspirants also.
Still all the jobs cannot be outsourced. Also if that would have been the case I would have been out of job. But My salary was increasing steadily and in this tough economy also I was able to get a new job with 20% rise in pay after I lost job . There are many companies in USA who are only hiring USA citizens and discouraging outsourcing. Wherever I was working I discouraged those companies from outsourcing but encouraged them to hire h1bs ,GC holders or US citizens. Many start up companies in California cannot afford to do outsourcing because of tight release schedules.
dilipcr,
Please wake up from your dream. No matter how you want it, outsourcing won't go away.
Outsourcing companies will always provide a lower cost to client as long as dollar is valuable than rupee ( or any other developing world currency).
They can do this by one of the following ways.
Use L1s for client site assignments. Some of these maybe illegal. Still they do it. Client is happy, outsourcers are happy.
Let us say everybody complains to ICE about this and L1 visas are unavailable for outsourcers. Their next strategy is to change the ratio of onsite resources to offshore resources. Again they will offer a cheaper solution to client. For executing a project in onsite/offshore model they don't need all these L1 guys here. They just need a few managers and maybe some team leads. They can execute the project with minumum resources onsite. Company and client wins again. The only reason they place so many resources onsite is to charge the client at dollar rate.
If US wants to prevent offshoring they have to ban offshoring explicitly. Doing so will go against the WTO rules.
To summarize, outsourcing cannot be stopped. Salary levels will always go down with time.
Still all the jobs cannot be outsourced. Also if that would have been the case I would have been out of job. But My salary was increasing steadily and in this tough economy also I was able to get a new job with 20% rise in pay after I lost job . There are many companies in USA who are only hiring USA citizens and discouraging outsourcing. Wherever I was working I discouraged those companies from outsourcing but encouraged them to hire h1bs ,GC holders or US citizens. Many start up companies in California cannot afford to do outsourcing because of tight release schedules.
dilipcr,
Please wake up from your dream. No matter how you want it, outsourcing won't go away.
Outsourcing companies will always provide a lower cost to client as long as dollar is valuable than rupee ( or any other developing world currency).
They can do this by one of the following ways.
Use L1s for client site assignments. Some of these maybe illegal. Still they do it. Client is happy, outsourcers are happy.
Let us say everybody complains to ICE about this and L1 visas are unavailable for outsourcers. Their next strategy is to change the ratio of onsite resources to offshore resources. Again they will offer a cheaper solution to client. For executing a project in onsite/offshore model they don't need all these L1 guys here. They just need a few managers and maybe some team leads. They can execute the project with minumum resources onsite. Company and client wins again. The only reason they place so many resources onsite is to charge the client at dollar rate.
If US wants to prevent offshoring they have to ban offshoring explicitly. Doing so will go against the WTO rules.
To summarize, outsourcing cannot be stopped. Salary levels will always go down with time.
more...
gc28262
01-16 06:14 PM
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_repatt.html dated March 2006
I discussed the matter of the Consular section requiring end-user client (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/#) letters. Many H1B employers and employees, as well as several AILA attorneys, have approached me as well as the Murthy Law Firm, inquiring about this. The matter deals with the fairly recent requests for letters from supervisors of the end-user clients. These requests require the end users to outline the nature of the job to be performed by the H1B visa candidate, provide details of where the candidate will work, the length of the project, and the need for a specific H1B employee by name and other details. Unfortunately, most end-user clients are not willing to comply with such an onerous request. The very reason for the end-user client to hire an outside consulting company is to minimize the burden of administrative or HR responsibilities. Moreover, the law does not require such detailed letters for the issuance of H1B visas.
�MurthyDotCom
I respectfully summarized the position of many of you, our clients or those using candidates who apply for the H1B visa at Chennai, as follows.
End-user clients generally will not issue letters to the consulate, as they do not wish to get involved with the H1B process. The very nature of the employment relationship, when hiring through consulting companies, is to avoid or minimize the work related to hiring candidates.
Employers who sign the H1B documents do so under penalty of perjury and must pay the required prevailing wage, irrespective of whether they have assignments for the H1B candidates. The employer may decide to send the candidate back to his/her home country if enough assignments cannot be found.
Legacy INS (now USCIS) raised many similar issues, in the early- to mid-1990s, regarding the length and nature of the projects in the U.S., timetable of assignments, and the H1B employer�s ability to pay the required prevailing wage. Senior Legacy INS officials from headquarters in Washington DC addressed the concerns of those examiners by pointing out that the law does not permit them to investigate a U.S. employer�s ability to hire H1B employees. The USCIS is bound by memos and policy guidance of the Legacy INS. After that memo, Legacy INS stopped issuing lengthy RFEs on these matters.
The law does not require any such letters by end-user clients for the issuance of the H1B visas to the visa applicants.
Delays in the issuance of H1B visas cause many of the employers considerable financial (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/#) loss and postpone the implementation of projects. This results in the additional loss of revenues and credibility with their clients, due to their inability to produce in a timely fashion the required specialty-worker candidates.
I discussed the matter of the Consular section requiring end-user client (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/#) letters. Many H1B employers and employees, as well as several AILA attorneys, have approached me as well as the Murthy Law Firm, inquiring about this. The matter deals with the fairly recent requests for letters from supervisors of the end-user clients. These requests require the end users to outline the nature of the job to be performed by the H1B visa candidate, provide details of where the candidate will work, the length of the project, and the need for a specific H1B employee by name and other details. Unfortunately, most end-user clients are not willing to comply with such an onerous request. The very reason for the end-user client to hire an outside consulting company is to minimize the burden of administrative or HR responsibilities. Moreover, the law does not require such detailed letters for the issuance of H1B visas.
�MurthyDotCom
I respectfully summarized the position of many of you, our clients or those using candidates who apply for the H1B visa at Chennai, as follows.
End-user clients generally will not issue letters to the consulate, as they do not wish to get involved with the H1B process. The very nature of the employment relationship, when hiring through consulting companies, is to avoid or minimize the work related to hiring candidates.
Employers who sign the H1B documents do so under penalty of perjury and must pay the required prevailing wage, irrespective of whether they have assignments for the H1B candidates. The employer may decide to send the candidate back to his/her home country if enough assignments cannot be found.
Legacy INS (now USCIS) raised many similar issues, in the early- to mid-1990s, regarding the length and nature of the projects in the U.S., timetable of assignments, and the H1B employer�s ability to pay the required prevailing wage. Senior Legacy INS officials from headquarters in Washington DC addressed the concerns of those examiners by pointing out that the law does not permit them to investigate a U.S. employer�s ability to hire H1B employees. The USCIS is bound by memos and policy guidance of the Legacy INS. After that memo, Legacy INS stopped issuing lengthy RFEs on these matters.
The law does not require any such letters by end-user clients for the issuance of the H1B visas to the visa applicants.
Delays in the issuance of H1B visas cause many of the employers considerable financial (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/#) loss and postpone the implementation of projects. This results in the additional loss of revenues and credibility with their clients, due to their inability to produce in a timely fashion the required specialty-worker candidates.
2010 Summerfest Milwaukee 2010
mbartosik
02-13 10:56 PM
you cannot sue for incompetence, or the courts would be full!
more...
sush
07-10 12:42 PM
excellent move.
hope you well buddy.
hope you well buddy.
hair 2010 hair milwaukee summerfest
ujjwal_p
10-15 05:38 PM
If spillover works, logic is simple. Pending applications ~290K. Quot available ~140k
So, in just two years, every category should be current. Lets not scratch our heads.
Please work out the data versus pending/quota/spillover. Do VISA DATES ENGINEERING. And figure out the visa dates process/workflow and put in front of DOS/USCIS to adopt. Or lobby to adopt. or rally to adopt.
Otherwise our math will always be different from DOS/USCIS math on visa dates ;)
Easy boss. It aint that simple. You think nobody's going to be awarded gc's in the next year from EB1 and EB2 ROW? Wow. You not only need spillover but also need really low demand from EB1 and EB2 ROW through next Oct. If economy start picking up we'll be piling up on the backlog again and back to twiddling our thumbs waiting for visa bulletin every month. The only way this can be solved is through more visas or through visa recapture. If either of them doesn't happen, we are pretty much guaranteed not seeing "current" for a good 5-10 years, assuming the economy starts recovering and adding more jobs which seems like it has slowly begun. Not that simple.
So, in just two years, every category should be current. Lets not scratch our heads.
Please work out the data versus pending/quota/spillover. Do VISA DATES ENGINEERING. And figure out the visa dates process/workflow and put in front of DOS/USCIS to adopt. Or lobby to adopt. or rally to adopt.
Otherwise our math will always be different from DOS/USCIS math on visa dates ;)
Easy boss. It aint that simple. You think nobody's going to be awarded gc's in the next year from EB1 and EB2 ROW? Wow. You not only need spillover but also need really low demand from EB1 and EB2 ROW through next Oct. If economy start picking up we'll be piling up on the backlog again and back to twiddling our thumbs waiting for visa bulletin every month. The only way this can be solved is through more visas or through visa recapture. If either of them doesn't happen, we are pretty much guaranteed not seeing "current" for a good 5-10 years, assuming the economy starts recovering and adding more jobs which seems like it has slowly begun. Not that simple.
more...
Subst_labor
03-16 12:45 PM
hi All,
Can someone give me advice on this:
I have 4 yrs Bachelors + 6.5 yrs of IT exp. i am being offered a Pre- approved labor(EB3-PD-Nov.2003), which was filed for someone with a condition-Bachelors + 4 years exp., at the time of filing.
i graduated in June 2000, so i am about 1 year short for the 2003 PD. However i did some part time work during college in India and the lawyer says if i can get exp. letter from that company on a letter head, that should suffice.
i am concerned if that India exp. during graduation will work or not.
Has anyone faced a situation like this?
the (part time exp)company was very small, can this be risky? what do you guys think?
Thanks.
Can someone give me advice on this:
I have 4 yrs Bachelors + 6.5 yrs of IT exp. i am being offered a Pre- approved labor(EB3-PD-Nov.2003), which was filed for someone with a condition-Bachelors + 4 years exp., at the time of filing.
i graduated in June 2000, so i am about 1 year short for the 2003 PD. However i did some part time work during college in India and the lawyer says if i can get exp. letter from that company on a letter head, that should suffice.
i am concerned if that India exp. during graduation will work or not.
Has anyone faced a situation like this?
the (part time exp)company was very small, can this be risky? what do you guys think?
Thanks.
hot milwaukee summerfest
Pineapple
12-14 05:10 PM
I can understand your concerns.. and no, I do no resent your comment. I rather welcome a different viewpoint! IV, I emphatically maintain is made up ordinary people, like you and me, regardless of nationality and culture. I'm not a core member, but that, in itself, is the point - there is no top-down hierarchy, no "party line". IV is us. It is the very embodiment of the philosophy, "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" .
If it were any different, I would not be here.
That said, let me address your concerns. You (and anyone else) is free to disagree.
Let us say all country quotas are removed. In that case, yes, you will see a majority of GCs going to people of Indian and Chinese extraction. But to say that the removal of country quota is going to disadvantage people of other countries is a mathematical fallacy.
Let me explain it this way, using an analogy. Suppose you take part in a lotto game. The prizes (GC) are limited. Say there is only one prize and you have 100 participants. Also, further, let us say 80 are from California and 20 are from Pennsylvania.
If you play the game several times, you will see that 80 % of the prizes go to people from California.
But, that does not mean that you will improve your chances of winning if you move from Pennsylvania to California!!
Your odds are exactly the same - 1 in 100.
Removing country quotas would have the same consequence: If would actually give everyone a level playing field, and everyone would have the same shot at making the coveted quota of 140,000 EB GCs.
But when you have quotas, the probabilities are severely distorted. Especially when you have arbitrary quotas. (Why 7 %? Why not 9 %? Why not 5.247 %?).
In this case, if you are from India or China, you are seriously disadvantaged, while someone from a smaller country gets an unfair advantage. This is not complex political philosophy. It is school boy arithmetic.
You see what I mean?
When an Indian or Chinese asks for no country quotas, he/she is not asking for more.. He/she can no more control the wind as control where he/she is born. He/she is just asking to have a fair chance just as anyone else in the world. Why should he/she be penalized for being born in a big country?
I hope you see what I mean.
Anyway, the thread is about whether we can make a constitutionality argument in the court. The issue of "fairness" is quite settled as I explained above.
I know what I am about to say will trigger a lot of reaction and some resentment, but it has to be said on behalf of those who are not Indian. I think the per country limit is to ensure that people of all nationalities and races have an equal opportunity to obtain a green card and to ensure that no one nationality, group, or even sector (i.e. IT) monopolizes the so few visas that are available. In fact, in the visa lottery, countries become excluded when the number of immigrants from them reach a certain point, so we are lucky they do not do that in the Employment-based system!
I think that by wanting to remove the per country limit so more Indians can avail of the green card quota is both asking for "special treatment" and a slap in the face for all the non-Indian IV members. The more I read the threads on this site, the more I feel that this organization is geared just to one ethnic group. I am sure that Indians probably make up the majority of members, but the founders of IV (I hope) did not want this organization to become one-sided! Please be considerate of ALL members and try to come up with suggestions that would benefit ALL members!!!:mad:
If it were any different, I would not be here.
That said, let me address your concerns. You (and anyone else) is free to disagree.
Let us say all country quotas are removed. In that case, yes, you will see a majority of GCs going to people of Indian and Chinese extraction. But to say that the removal of country quota is going to disadvantage people of other countries is a mathematical fallacy.
Let me explain it this way, using an analogy. Suppose you take part in a lotto game. The prizes (GC) are limited. Say there is only one prize and you have 100 participants. Also, further, let us say 80 are from California and 20 are from Pennsylvania.
If you play the game several times, you will see that 80 % of the prizes go to people from California.
But, that does not mean that you will improve your chances of winning if you move from Pennsylvania to California!!
Your odds are exactly the same - 1 in 100.
Removing country quotas would have the same consequence: If would actually give everyone a level playing field, and everyone would have the same shot at making the coveted quota of 140,000 EB GCs.
But when you have quotas, the probabilities are severely distorted. Especially when you have arbitrary quotas. (Why 7 %? Why not 9 %? Why not 5.247 %?).
In this case, if you are from India or China, you are seriously disadvantaged, while someone from a smaller country gets an unfair advantage. This is not complex political philosophy. It is school boy arithmetic.
You see what I mean?
When an Indian or Chinese asks for no country quotas, he/she is not asking for more.. He/she can no more control the wind as control where he/she is born. He/she is just asking to have a fair chance just as anyone else in the world. Why should he/she be penalized for being born in a big country?
I hope you see what I mean.
Anyway, the thread is about whether we can make a constitutionality argument in the court. The issue of "fairness" is quite settled as I explained above.
I know what I am about to say will trigger a lot of reaction and some resentment, but it has to be said on behalf of those who are not Indian. I think the per country limit is to ensure that people of all nationalities and races have an equal opportunity to obtain a green card and to ensure that no one nationality, group, or even sector (i.e. IT) monopolizes the so few visas that are available. In fact, in the visa lottery, countries become excluded when the number of immigrants from them reach a certain point, so we are lucky they do not do that in the Employment-based system!
I think that by wanting to remove the per country limit so more Indians can avail of the green card quota is both asking for "special treatment" and a slap in the face for all the non-Indian IV members. The more I read the threads on this site, the more I feel that this organization is geared just to one ethnic group. I am sure that Indians probably make up the majority of members, but the founders of IV (I hope) did not want this organization to become one-sided! Please be considerate of ALL members and try to come up with suggestions that would benefit ALL members!!!:mad:
more...
house milwaukee summerfest 2011.
eyeswe
07-21 04:33 PM
I think we have met somewhere OR I have seen you somewhere...
Would you like to be financially independent?
Are u from XYZ Engg College in Mumbai
The Amway cheer ...
... There is lot of excitement in this room with X,Y,X, A etc.. and this excitement is going all the way to P, Q, R on the phone.. Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Heyyyyyy, Heyyyyyy, Heyyyyyyy " and folks jump around to show the excitement
Needless to say I have been in several Amway bait situations. My room mates were Amway folks and we use to have several meetings at my place -- upline, downline used to be the manthra...
Would you like to be financially independent?
Are u from XYZ Engg College in Mumbai
The Amway cheer ...
... There is lot of excitement in this room with X,Y,X, A etc.. and this excitement is going all the way to P, Q, R on the phone.. Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Heyyyyyy, Heyyyyyy, Heyyyyyyy " and folks jump around to show the excitement
Needless to say I have been in several Amway bait situations. My room mates were Amway folks and we use to have several meetings at my place -- upline, downline used to be the manthra...
tattoo Summerfest 2010: Opening For
minimalist
05-11 04:27 PM
Eventhough from a humanitarian point of view, I feel UPA should work with Srilankan government to work out peace. However it is not because the people being killed are Tamilians , who speak the same language as people from my neighbouring state.
I feel sorry for all the civilians who got killed in Iraq, same way.
Now you can't wait to "relinquish" the citizenship of a country that didn't poke it's nose into the affairs of a different sovereign nation as soon as you get the citizenship of another country that is directly responsible for deaths and horrible conditions of scroes more people.
The only reason you are carrying a Indian passport is because it suits you for now. The only condition you are willing to ditch that is when you are sure of a better suited passport for you.
Now express your anger/sympathy or any other emotion but don't pose as if you are doing it for the betterment of world. You put the language people speak over the country one belongs to. Remember the pledge you took during schooling? It said all Indians are my brothers and sisters. If you want to be a world citizen, no issues. People like you are of no use to any country. If you find an issue, work on rectifying it if you have the guts. Don't give dramatic statements like " I too carry the Indian passport with shame"
I completely agree with you.
Few of the most trusted allies for India in the region are Tamils from Sri Lanka and Baluch people from Pakistan but this present UPA govt ditched both of them.
As a Tamil, I too carry the Indian passport with shame and can't wait to see the day when I become a US citizen.
I feel sorry for all the civilians who got killed in Iraq, same way.
Now you can't wait to "relinquish" the citizenship of a country that didn't poke it's nose into the affairs of a different sovereign nation as soon as you get the citizenship of another country that is directly responsible for deaths and horrible conditions of scroes more people.
The only reason you are carrying a Indian passport is because it suits you for now. The only condition you are willing to ditch that is when you are sure of a better suited passport for you.
Now express your anger/sympathy or any other emotion but don't pose as if you are doing it for the betterment of world. You put the language people speak over the country one belongs to. Remember the pledge you took during schooling? It said all Indians are my brothers and sisters. If you want to be a world citizen, no issues. People like you are of no use to any country. If you find an issue, work on rectifying it if you have the guts. Don't give dramatic statements like " I too carry the Indian passport with shame"
I completely agree with you.
Few of the most trusted allies for India in the region are Tamils from Sri Lanka and Baluch people from Pakistan but this present UPA govt ditched both of them.
As a Tamil, I too carry the Indian passport with shame and can't wait to see the day when I become a US citizen.
more...
pictures multicolor Summerfest logo
sath2000
07-17 04:33 PM
Hi,
Here is my issue regarding the PD.
My Employer applied for labor through RIR under EB2 March6th 2004 which was then transffered to Philadelphia Backlog Center. Our Attorney suggested that we Apply through PERM process and Retain PD from the old case. Converted to PERM and applied on 09/26/2006 which was approved on 12/29/2006 but the letter said that they are not retaining PD from the old application as address is changed. Our employer moved 1 street accross in between these to application in Feb 2006. only street address changed everything including phone number remained same. My attorney said that he talked to the labor department in Chicago telling them that phone number didn't change. They said they will consider it and asked him to send a letter. It has been over 15 months he send the first letter. He said last month he also received a call from chicago office saying that they will take a look at the files.
In the meantime applied for I-140 and I-485 concurrently in July/Aug 2007. I-140 got approved on 05/28/2008 and got RFE for I-485 on 06/13/2008. responded to RFE and now case process resumed.
At this point I am trying to see if anyone have this kinda of issue and got resolved or there is away to get this resolved.
thank you
Here is my issue regarding the PD.
My Employer applied for labor through RIR under EB2 March6th 2004 which was then transffered to Philadelphia Backlog Center. Our Attorney suggested that we Apply through PERM process and Retain PD from the old case. Converted to PERM and applied on 09/26/2006 which was approved on 12/29/2006 but the letter said that they are not retaining PD from the old application as address is changed. Our employer moved 1 street accross in between these to application in Feb 2006. only street address changed everything including phone number remained same. My attorney said that he talked to the labor department in Chicago telling them that phone number didn't change. They said they will consider it and asked him to send a letter. It has been over 15 months he send the first letter. He said last month he also received a call from chicago office saying that they will take a look at the files.
In the meantime applied for I-140 and I-485 concurrently in July/Aug 2007. I-140 got approved on 05/28/2008 and got RFE for I-485 on 06/13/2008. responded to RFE and now case process resumed.
At this point I am trying to see if anyone have this kinda of issue and got resolved or there is away to get this resolved.
thank you
dresses 2011 hot Summerfest Milwaukee
senthil1
03-16 01:24 PM
It depends on INS. If they notice the overlap between study and experience and they can send RFE. If you send explanation to RFE then it is upto INS to accept or reject. If thy doo not notice then no problem.Some people in INS have some idea about fake experience certificates in India. It is easy to get experience certificate even if you do not work. You can get idea by analysing similar situation.
QUOTE=Subst_labor]i am not paying anything, its a decent company from NJ. the only thing i am concerned about is that this experience was when i was IN college and it was a really small company (part time thing..)[/QUOTE]
QUOTE=Subst_labor]i am not paying anything, its a decent company from NJ. the only thing i am concerned about is that this experience was when i was IN college and it was a really small company (part time thing..)[/QUOTE]
more...
makeup 2010 2010 summerfest
newtoearth
05-02 07:56 PM
...
girlfriend pictures Milwaukee Summerfest
cygent
12-19 05:06 PM
All,
I have created DIGG article for this, Please digg it.
http://digg.com/business_finance/How_to_Solve_the_Housing_Crisis_Let_in_More_Immigr ants_to_B_2
Add this/your comment that involve the backlogged legal community already working in the USA, instead of more H1's. Thank you!
******
Why is Gary looking outside of USA to tap potential home buyers? Just for folks who aren't aware - there are 500,000 high skilled legal immigrant already in USA who are waiting in queue for numbers of years to get their Permanent Residency. Thanks to the limited visa availability based on country chargeability (birth of applicant) and inefficiency of immigration system, these highly skilled, tax paying and law abiding immgrants are waiting for their Green Card (Permanent residency). Some of them have studied here, worked here for years and US is almost a second home to them. They are sitting on pile of cash, Yes - PILE OF HARD CASH. They wouldn't buy house or any big ticket items until they get Green card. Why not give these people, who are already part of our system, conditional Permanent Residency who buy houses. This will also get us immediately required cash and home inventory will go down as much as 300K at minimum. P.S. I AM TALKING ABOUT HIGH SKILLED LEGAL IMMGRANTS AND NOT ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
I have created DIGG article for this, Please digg it.
http://digg.com/business_finance/How_to_Solve_the_Housing_Crisis_Let_in_More_Immigr ants_to_B_2
Add this/your comment that involve the backlogged legal community already working in the USA, instead of more H1's. Thank you!
******
Why is Gary looking outside of USA to tap potential home buyers? Just for folks who aren't aware - there are 500,000 high skilled legal immigrant already in USA who are waiting in queue for numbers of years to get their Permanent Residency. Thanks to the limited visa availability based on country chargeability (birth of applicant) and inefficiency of immigration system, these highly skilled, tax paying and law abiding immgrants are waiting for their Green Card (Permanent residency). Some of them have studied here, worked here for years and US is almost a second home to them. They are sitting on pile of cash, Yes - PILE OF HARD CASH. They wouldn't buy house or any big ticket items until they get Green card. Why not give these people, who are already part of our system, conditional Permanent Residency who buy houses. This will also get us immediately required cash and home inventory will go down as much as 300K at minimum. P.S. I AM TALKING ABOUT HIGH SKILLED LEGAL IMMGRANTS AND NOT ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
hairstyles summerfest logo milwaukee.
unitednations
02-13 09:07 PM
I am following this discussion and it is interesting. Here is what I get so far.
USCIS is not allotting excess visa number horizontally. Unused visas from Eb1 and EB2 are not going to over subscribed countries but to EB3 ROW. The "total" visas in the law can be read as total visa across all categories. If this is true then it is likely that untill EB3 ROW becomes current, India and China will only get 7%. But here is what I do not get.
1) From november 2005 bulletin, USCIS is saying that they are going to suspend AC21. Why did they decide to suspend ac21? Can they decide on their own when they are going to apply to AC21 and when they are not? Is AC21 not a law?
2) Why or how did USCIS allocate large number of visas to over subscribed countries India and China before? Like in the November bulletin, USCIS says india used up around 44000 visas. Were they allocating more visas by following AC21? If yes, then why did they decide to suspend AC21? If no, then how they allocated so many numbers?
I am trying to understand the how the USCIS decides to allocate visa numbers. And it is very complex.
No; it is not in their discretion to suspend anything.
Before concurrent filing came around (2002); it was pretty easy to calculate dates because the 140's had to be approved. from here they could get good estimates.
However; they weren't ready for concurrent filing and 140's sat for almost one to two years to get approved. It looks like at this time; the visa dates started to get screwed up. Essentially, ac21 law says at anytime there is more demand then supply of visas in any quarter then 7% limit will apply. If you think about this; when would a situation ever exist where there wouldn't be more then 35,000 applications in any quarter?
back in 2003 in one of thos aila liaision minutes; uscis had said that approving 485's for EB people wasn't a priority and they just sat there. Hardly any EB cases got approved back then.
In April 2005 there was over 35,000 EB approvals mainly due to ombudsmen slamming them for not approving the cases. It looks like when all these cases got approved; someone at uscis/dos realized there was a big problem in their handling of visa dates and that there were too many applicants for visas and established dates and then in October 2006 they went strictly by more demand then visas available in a quarter then no ac21 and retrogression.
That's why I say there are also many people walking around with 485's who perhaps shouldn't be; because dos/uscis didn't do it properly in the last few years.
Also, due to the long time it was taking to get labors approved in heavy immigrant states (california, texas, georiga, new jersey, new york, virigina) many people from ROW in these states weren't able to get labors approved. However, many enterprising companies decided they were going to open branch offices in fast processing states (maine, new hampshire, south dakota, wisconsin) and get the labors approved very fast. This is why there is people with 2004 priority dates in eb3 with 485's pending but people in the slow states couldn't file. Now; there is a big convergence of all of this together. We all just happen to have gotten caught in a unique period of time in immigration (245i's; labor backlogs; concurrent filing; expansion of h-1b's, etc.).
USCIS is not allotting excess visa number horizontally. Unused visas from Eb1 and EB2 are not going to over subscribed countries but to EB3 ROW. The "total" visas in the law can be read as total visa across all categories. If this is true then it is likely that untill EB3 ROW becomes current, India and China will only get 7%. But here is what I do not get.
1) From november 2005 bulletin, USCIS is saying that they are going to suspend AC21. Why did they decide to suspend ac21? Can they decide on their own when they are going to apply to AC21 and when they are not? Is AC21 not a law?
2) Why or how did USCIS allocate large number of visas to over subscribed countries India and China before? Like in the November bulletin, USCIS says india used up around 44000 visas. Were they allocating more visas by following AC21? If yes, then why did they decide to suspend AC21? If no, then how they allocated so many numbers?
I am trying to understand the how the USCIS decides to allocate visa numbers. And it is very complex.
No; it is not in their discretion to suspend anything.
Before concurrent filing came around (2002); it was pretty easy to calculate dates because the 140's had to be approved. from here they could get good estimates.
However; they weren't ready for concurrent filing and 140's sat for almost one to two years to get approved. It looks like at this time; the visa dates started to get screwed up. Essentially, ac21 law says at anytime there is more demand then supply of visas in any quarter then 7% limit will apply. If you think about this; when would a situation ever exist where there wouldn't be more then 35,000 applications in any quarter?
back in 2003 in one of thos aila liaision minutes; uscis had said that approving 485's for EB people wasn't a priority and they just sat there. Hardly any EB cases got approved back then.
In April 2005 there was over 35,000 EB approvals mainly due to ombudsmen slamming them for not approving the cases. It looks like when all these cases got approved; someone at uscis/dos realized there was a big problem in their handling of visa dates and that there were too many applicants for visas and established dates and then in October 2006 they went strictly by more demand then visas available in a quarter then no ac21 and retrogression.
That's why I say there are also many people walking around with 485's who perhaps shouldn't be; because dos/uscis didn't do it properly in the last few years.
Also, due to the long time it was taking to get labors approved in heavy immigrant states (california, texas, georiga, new jersey, new york, virigina) many people from ROW in these states weren't able to get labors approved. However, many enterprising companies decided they were going to open branch offices in fast processing states (maine, new hampshire, south dakota, wisconsin) and get the labors approved very fast. This is why there is people with 2004 priority dates in eb3 with 485's pending but people in the slow states couldn't file. Now; there is a big convergence of all of this together. We all just happen to have gotten caught in a unique period of time in immigration (245i's; labor backlogs; concurrent filing; expansion of h-1b's, etc.).
oguinan
02-15 11:48 PM
ouignan,
You can see that the UN panel is aware of the fact that racial discrimination manifests itself in disproportional representation (note the reference to the composition of the Supreme Court). It can be argued that the 7% country limit provides a pretext to discriminate against India/China/Mexico on the basis of ethnic or racial origin, and as such would run afoul of the convention.
I enjoyed that article, it's a great find. To be fair, it does offer both opinion and history. I do agree that the 7% limit is unfair but the answer is to increase the supply of green cards so that all qualified applicants get their green cards. The racial element is something everybody should be aware of. It's important that we all have a good understanding of the history of the immigration laws, in the united states and elsewhere. Perhaps "History of Immigration Laws" would be an interesting thread on it's own. At the very least we should add the wikipedia references that we discussed earlier into the resources section.
You can see that the UN panel is aware of the fact that racial discrimination manifests itself in disproportional representation (note the reference to the composition of the Supreme Court). It can be argued that the 7% country limit provides a pretext to discriminate against India/China/Mexico on the basis of ethnic or racial origin, and as such would run afoul of the convention.
I enjoyed that article, it's a great find. To be fair, it does offer both opinion and history. I do agree that the 7% limit is unfair but the answer is to increase the supply of green cards so that all qualified applicants get their green cards. The racial element is something everybody should be aware of. It's important that we all have a good understanding of the history of the immigration laws, in the united states and elsewhere. Perhaps "History of Immigration Laws" would be an interesting thread on it's own. At the very least we should add the wikipedia references that we discussed earlier into the resources section.
copsmart
09-24 02:19 PM
WSJ
Executive Editor
a.murray@wsj.com
WSJ
Senior Editor
darren.mcdermott@wsj.com
MSNBC
letters@msnbc.com
NBC
today@nbcuni.com
Roll Call
Editorial Department (http://www.rollcall.com/cgi-bin/udt/fdc.collector?client_id=rollcall&form_id=maileditform)
CNN would trash our email or forward it to Lou anyway, so not included in the list.
Executive Editor
a.murray@wsj.com
WSJ
Senior Editor
darren.mcdermott@wsj.com
MSNBC
letters@msnbc.com
NBC
today@nbcuni.com
Roll Call
Editorial Department (http://www.rollcall.com/cgi-bin/udt/fdc.collector?client_id=rollcall&form_id=maileditform)
CNN would trash our email or forward it to Lou anyway, so not included in the list.
