chintu25
03-09 10:42 AM
Good one ..itsnotfunny....but I will tell you that each one of us does wait with baited breath for the VB .
I am all for the FOIA drive and have promised some money as well. But lets just hope and pray that the VB brings some good news for some of us :)
I am all for the FOIA drive and have promised some money as well. But lets just hope and pray that the VB brings some good news for some of us :)
wallpaper Sarah Jones picture gallery
raysaikat
01-06 04:11 PM
I am not sure why people jump onto drawing conclusions so fast...look at the above post from a so called professor....he encountered a couple of a folks from some universities & concludes that those universities are just crappy....!! Many of my colleagues are from the professors' "oh-so-good" list of IITs/univs and they are no better!! (In fact, some of them suck so bad)!!
raysaikat - Do you really think any student from the above crappy-univs could not tell what is f(0.7) by looking at the graph?? Do you really think those univs (anna/osm...) are so bad? Now another question for you prof....how come are you working in a university that's giving admissions to such a bunch of crappy folks...!!?? Given this fact, can we also safely assume that the university you are teaching-in is a Crappy one, which could only attract the bottom pile from your above list of crappy-universities??
PS: Sorry for digressing from the main topic of the thread.
I do not particularly disagree with either points. AFAIK, there are many colleges under the Anna University (i.e., students from all colleges get the same degree); some of them might teach properly and students may learn something. But the point of illustration was that there got to be some serious problems with those degrees if a significant number of students are getting that degree without actually learning/knowing anything. I never made a statement that *every* Anna/Osmania Univ. student is bad. My statement is that I have witnessed a large number of singularly bad students with degrees from those Universities. Those students may well be at the bottom pile. The point is that even a bottom level student who get an engineering degree must know better than those students: otherwise they should not be given the degrees. There are not-so-good people in IITs (B.Tech) as well; I know a few personally. But even they are way better than the students I have encountered. Let me know if you have met some B.Tech (and not M.Tech) from IIT who cannot write a 'hello world' in C; I am very curious.
I also do not disagree with your second comment. But that clearly illustrates the point that Wadhwa stated; there is a severe shortage of jobs that *require* a Ph.D. It is plain impossible to get a faculty position in a reasonable school in CS/EE, in particular, in computer networking. There are just no jobs. Note that my track record is quite good: Ph.D. from a good school (although not in the top ten) with a good publication list (a reasonable number of papers; all in good journals/conferences like Transaction on Networking; JSAC; INFOCOM, etc.; most of them cited many times) and a post-doc from an Ivy league school. At present, other than Biomedical Engineering and related fields, faculty positions are very scarce. And hopefully you understand that you cannot "change fields" like a computer programmer since in academia you need to have a research record of 4-5 years in the new field before you can change to it. I wanted to be in academia and struck this trade-off of accepting a position in a not-so-good school.
raysaikat - Do you really think any student from the above crappy-univs could not tell what is f(0.7) by looking at the graph?? Do you really think those univs (anna/osm...) are so bad? Now another question for you prof....how come are you working in a university that's giving admissions to such a bunch of crappy folks...!!?? Given this fact, can we also safely assume that the university you are teaching-in is a Crappy one, which could only attract the bottom pile from your above list of crappy-universities??
PS: Sorry for digressing from the main topic of the thread.
I do not particularly disagree with either points. AFAIK, there are many colleges under the Anna University (i.e., students from all colleges get the same degree); some of them might teach properly and students may learn something. But the point of illustration was that there got to be some serious problems with those degrees if a significant number of students are getting that degree without actually learning/knowing anything. I never made a statement that *every* Anna/Osmania Univ. student is bad. My statement is that I have witnessed a large number of singularly bad students with degrees from those Universities. Those students may well be at the bottom pile. The point is that even a bottom level student who get an engineering degree must know better than those students: otherwise they should not be given the degrees. There are not-so-good people in IITs (B.Tech) as well; I know a few personally. But even they are way better than the students I have encountered. Let me know if you have met some B.Tech (and not M.Tech) from IIT who cannot write a 'hello world' in C; I am very curious.
I also do not disagree with your second comment. But that clearly illustrates the point that Wadhwa stated; there is a severe shortage of jobs that *require* a Ph.D. It is plain impossible to get a faculty position in a reasonable school in CS/EE, in particular, in computer networking. There are just no jobs. Note that my track record is quite good: Ph.D. from a good school (although not in the top ten) with a good publication list (a reasonable number of papers; all in good journals/conferences like Transaction on Networking; JSAC; INFOCOM, etc.; most of them cited many times) and a post-doc from an Ivy league school. At present, other than Biomedical Engineering and related fields, faculty positions are very scarce. And hopefully you understand that you cannot "change fields" like a computer programmer since in academia you need to have a research record of 4-5 years in the new field before you can change to it. I wanted to be in academia and struck this trade-off of accepting a position in a not-so-good school.
gc_maine2
08-10 12:39 PM
I hope it is this coming monday.:)
Which Monday are we going to get these receipts. About 3 Mondays have come and gone and a 4th one coming up :)
Which Monday are we going to get these receipts. About 3 Mondays have come and gone and a 4th one coming up :)
2011 Jeremiah Theus, Sarah Jones
tikka
07-18 08:29 PM
Contributed 100$. Thanks, IV!
for your contribution..:)
for your contribution..:)
more...
Humhongekamyab
06-11 12:40 PM
Guys,
What Mr. Charles Oppenheim is doing is trying to build a Consensus to create a legislative relief.
So, they want us to create an awareness and buyin from decision Makers.
"Therefore, without legislative relief, the waiting time for Indian EB2 applicants may be measured in years, even decades."
I agree. This was always there and it is only now that the government has acknowledged it. Mr. Oppenheim has given us ammunition to build our case and we must use it wisely.
Maybe we can have a have a "send fax" feature on IV from where we can quote Mr. Oppenheim's statement to send a fax to our senators. Also, it is high time that IV is a paid site even if it is $1 per month or 1 cents a day i.e. $3 per month. As I suggested in the past, new members/ visitors should be allowed to read the forums but to post a question or reply to a question one should be a paid member. I am confident that even with $1/month of 1 cent/day we will do better collections that we are doing now.
What Mr. Charles Oppenheim is doing is trying to build a Consensus to create a legislative relief.
So, they want us to create an awareness and buyin from decision Makers.
"Therefore, without legislative relief, the waiting time for Indian EB2 applicants may be measured in years, even decades."
I agree. This was always there and it is only now that the government has acknowledged it. Mr. Oppenheim has given us ammunition to build our case and we must use it wisely.
Maybe we can have a have a "send fax" feature on IV from where we can quote Mr. Oppenheim's statement to send a fax to our senators. Also, it is high time that IV is a paid site even if it is $1 per month or 1 cents a day i.e. $3 per month. As I suggested in the past, new members/ visitors should be allowed to read the forums but to post a question or reply to a question one should be a paid member. I am confident that even with $1/month of 1 cent/day we will do better collections that we are doing now.
JunRN
09-29 02:20 AM
2015....that was like you're the most unlucky person in the world if you get your GC in 2015....that was like 8 years from now....
more...
skillet
06-18 01:06 PM
No.. They are not auditing..
2010 sarah jones. sarah jones
piyu7444
04-30 07:31 PM
If you click on the userCP on the top left side on the forum page, you can see a bunch of reviews for your posts, if you have any (be it red or green dots with or without description). But, you won't know from who you received it though.
so how can you give these dot to other people ?
so how can you give these dot to other people ?
more...
chanduv23
05-15 10:16 PM
Maybe someone that has had to go through this can respond.
When you are working for a large(r) corporation, where all fees (including EAD/AP) are paid for by the company, who pays for the MTR?
I was under the impression that the employer pays for the filing, attorney, etc. fees, am I wrong?
Depends on ur employer. Usually after AC21 - it is obvious that there is no fee involved and many companies hire you after ac21 because they do need to deal with stuff like this.
Your employer ONLY needs to give a letter as per the AC21 rule and thats it.
When you are working for a large(r) corporation, where all fees (including EAD/AP) are paid for by the company, who pays for the MTR?
I was under the impression that the employer pays for the filing, attorney, etc. fees, am I wrong?
Depends on ur employer. Usually after AC21 - it is obvious that there is no fee involved and many companies hire you after ac21 because they do need to deal with stuff like this.
Your employer ONLY needs to give a letter as per the AC21 rule and thats it.
hair sarah jones: south downs
ajay
03-22 12:23 AM
I am in a bind now, appreciate any advice,
I am planning on using my EAD to switch to another job in a couple of months. Meanwhile I have booked tickets for May 26th to send my son to India for the summer. He has H4 stamped in his passport valid till 2010.
My question is
**Can my son come back on H4 even though I use my EAD to change jobs ?
**Does he need to have advance parole ? Even if I apply for AP tomorrow, chances are very slim that he will get it before he leaves on May 26th.
Thanks in Advance
I am planning on using my EAD to switch to another job in a couple of months. Meanwhile I have booked tickets for May 26th to send my son to India for the summer. He has H4 stamped in his passport valid till 2010.
My question is
**Can my son come back on H4 even though I use my EAD to change jobs ?
**Does he need to have advance parole ? Even if I apply for AP tomorrow, chances are very slim that he will get it before he leaves on May 26th.
Thanks in Advance
more...
nojoke
09-05 07:05 PM
There is no doubt about NRIs are the prime reason for the real estate boom in India. It is tottally unbelivable that 2 bedroom flat in a normal second class town has gone to up to 40 lakes. Decent independent houses are in terms of crores in small cites. Two factors. One is foreign money and second in black money from local dadas/politicians. Also demand vs supply. The availble land is small and demand for that land is too high due to these two gropus.
I visited one of my NRI friends house in India, where he is not going to live as he is a US citizen. His parents already won two houses and they bought another house as a investment. This house in a recent development area in a small town where there is no high tech employment is avialable; In my feeling it may not worth 5 lakes; they were selling at 45 lakes. Even if anyone ready to pay 45 lakes there is no unit is avialable; everything was sold to NRIs. No resident won the houses in that area. All the dads and mos are baby sitting the houses. Renting alos not that easy. It is tottally unbelivable. I wonder why all the NRIs buying house in India and increisng the house price? The guys working here (or any part of the world) and not going to live in India, why government should allow to buy the house and increse the price? Everyone tries to do real estate bussiness there. That is the main reason for price increase.
Is is sad. All these NRIs are going to learn a very valuable lesson. Speculation is not a good strategy for investing. A lot learned that in the past few months here in USA. In a year we will be seeing the full blown post bubble correction in India. If one can rent an apartment for 15,000 why would one buy it for 50 lakhs. The interest alone on 50 lakhs is 50,000 every month. It is like buy and rent it and loose money. Instead why don't they deposit in a bank and get 50,000 every month:confused:
I visited one of my NRI friends house in India, where he is not going to live as he is a US citizen. His parents already won two houses and they bought another house as a investment. This house in a recent development area in a small town where there is no high tech employment is avialable; In my feeling it may not worth 5 lakes; they were selling at 45 lakes. Even if anyone ready to pay 45 lakes there is no unit is avialable; everything was sold to NRIs. No resident won the houses in that area. All the dads and mos are baby sitting the houses. Renting alos not that easy. It is tottally unbelivable. I wonder why all the NRIs buying house in India and increisng the house price? The guys working here (or any part of the world) and not going to live in India, why government should allow to buy the house and increse the price? Everyone tries to do real estate bussiness there. That is the main reason for price increase.
Is is sad. All these NRIs are going to learn a very valuable lesson. Speculation is not a good strategy for investing. A lot learned that in the past few months here in USA. In a year we will be seeing the full blown post bubble correction in India. If one can rent an apartment for 15,000 why would one buy it for 50 lakhs. The interest alone on 50 lakhs is 50,000 every month. It is like buy and rent it and loose money. Instead why don't they deposit in a bank and get 50,000 every month:confused:
hot sarah jones. sarah jones
chanduv23
10-24 03:19 PM
jsut follweod up with my lawyer and Iwas told that my old company doesnot usaully revoke 140's unless the person left the company b4 the setforth dates as part of GC agreement (4yrs or b4 getting gc ) or the person discharged for some other reason...
HOWEVER i am still not taking chances and am participating int his campn. and alreay sent email as requested..tx guys
Lets none of us assume that if ex employer does not revoke 140 we are fine. We must ensure that erroneous denials are stopped.
HOWEVER i am still not taking chances and am participating int his campn. and alreay sent email as requested..tx guys
Lets none of us assume that if ex employer does not revoke 140 we are fine. We must ensure that erroneous denials are stopped.
more...
house Sarah Jones
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.
tattoo Theo Rossi and Sarah Jones at
gcfriend65
01-03 12:13 PM
Maybe they are referring to Notice date and not Receipt date.
I checked with NSC today regarding our AP filed on Oct 8th, 2007. I was told that they are processing September 16th right now and it would be few weeks before they get to mine.
Thanks
I checked with NSC today regarding our AP filed on Oct 8th, 2007. I was told that they are processing September 16th right now and it would be few weeks before they get to mine.
Thanks
more...
pictures Sarah Jones
gc28262
06-11 08:19 AM
we should collectively aim our approach to get SSA back and use up other benifits
J thomas
I agree. This should be one of our action items.
J thomas
I agree. This should be one of our action items.
dresses Sarah Jones Playwright/actress
gsvisu
07-13 05:07 PM
My 2.5 Cents.
We need to start a Letter Campaign next.
A focussed uniform format with some lead from IV. But now focus on San Jose,CA's rally efforts.
We need to start a Letter Campaign next.
A focussed uniform format with some lead from IV. But now focus on San Jose,CA's rally efforts.
more...
makeup Sarah Jones Musician/producer
conchshell
09-10 05:04 PM
In the past when we predicted the visa bulletin, people came up with estimated number of visas available and based on that predictions came through, which were pretty accurate.
Does someone know (vdlrao?) what is the rational behind this move? When new year 2009's visa quota is available, how come dates have gone so much backward. So far i was keep hearing that EB2 India will retrogress by couple of months ... but what we see in visa bulletin is a retrogression by couple of years. Are there so many people waiting between 2001 and 2003, that EB2 dates have gone back to 1 April 2003? Any thoughts?? As far as EB3 is concerned, I am speechless... god knows when these people will see any light at the end of the tunnel.
Does someone know (vdlrao?) what is the rational behind this move? When new year 2009's visa quota is available, how come dates have gone so much backward. So far i was keep hearing that EB2 India will retrogress by couple of months ... but what we see in visa bulletin is a retrogression by couple of years. Are there so many people waiting between 2001 and 2003, that EB2 dates have gone back to 1 April 2003? Any thoughts?? As far as EB3 is concerned, I am speechless... god knows when these people will see any light at the end of the tunnel.
girlfriend Group 666 Winner Sarah Jones
kevinkris
05-23 03:07 PM
Toppp
hairstyles sarah jones: lucky
rameshk75
01-09 03:00 PM
The status of AP seems to be changing practically everyday. The message (document mailed) first appeared on Jan 7, Then changed to Jan 8 with same message and today I see a date change in my portfolio (last updated section). Not sure when the document will actually get mailed...
Even i had two LUD's on 6th and 7th !! Don't know what is that !!
Even i had two LUD's on 6th and 7th !! Don't know what is that !!
Libra
09-12 02:13 PM
thank you imm_pro, let's go to DC.
Thanks IV...way to go.
Just made a modest contribution of $200.
Order Details - Sep 12, 2007 11:28 AM PDT
Google Order #313190031134013
Thanks IV...way to go.
Just made a modest contribution of $200.
Order Details - Sep 12, 2007 11:28 AM PDT
Google Order #313190031134013
addsf345
11-17 02:23 PM
One of IV members 'lazycis' (he is a knowledgable & senior member) also mentioned this, which exactly matches with what RG said:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=301999&postcount=16
so I am sure there are some provisions. I hope 'lazycis' will provide some more info if he sees this post.
Edit: Chandu - please click this link to read on RG's forums. (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6461)
Pardon my ignorance, but is this something we can ask clarification from CIS Ombudsman? Its real confusing:confused:
Some updates: I talked to two different lawyers and both advised differently on this issue. In fact I got the impression that one of them didn't have much clue as much as some experienced IV members have. (He said if job titles are different than you have issues...) There are many people hanging on to their current employer due to confusion on this issue and potential effect on pending GC.
and the great question continues to haunt: can a person keep working legally on EAD status if his/hers I-485 gets revoked in error by CIS? or he will be forced to resign from a new job when his MTR is being filed or in progress??? This is really killing me. Who has the answer? if anyone knows, please please share!
lazycis, chanduv - anyone to comment on above new information???
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=301999&postcount=16
so I am sure there are some provisions. I hope 'lazycis' will provide some more info if he sees this post.
Edit: Chandu - please click this link to read on RG's forums. (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6461)
Pardon my ignorance, but is this something we can ask clarification from CIS Ombudsman? Its real confusing:confused:
Some updates: I talked to two different lawyers and both advised differently on this issue. In fact I got the impression that one of them didn't have much clue as much as some experienced IV members have. (He said if job titles are different than you have issues...) There are many people hanging on to their current employer due to confusion on this issue and potential effect on pending GC.
and the great question continues to haunt: can a person keep working legally on EAD status if his/hers I-485 gets revoked in error by CIS? or he will be forced to resign from a new job when his MTR is being filed or in progress??? This is really killing me. Who has the answer? if anyone knows, please please share!
lazycis, chanduv - anyone to comment on above new information???
No comments:
Post a Comment