Printable View
CO has said at least twice before that USCIS are making no effort to track porting cases and cannot supply him with the information.Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
I find that a very believable statement.
Essentially no-one knows. USCIS could, but can't be bothered.
PS No offence taken, though I didn't even think your comment was. I have a fairly thick skin anyway.
Spec - CO's public statements are not to be confused with truth. I do not believe they operate visa allocation by happenstance. I think visa allocation is quite deliberate and well coordinated across various agencies. Otherwise we wouldnt have seen the concerted efforts to flush ROW EB2 pipeline from 485 to 140 to all the way back to PERMs between 2007-2009. Even today the way dates are retrogressed is pretty much anti-India/anti-Indian strains of DoS' policy objectives. It's a shame but I think that's what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Q,
I expect better from you. :)
Expect truth Spec - better or worse ;) It would naive to take DoS actions at facevalue. If Immigration was apolitical then they wouldve put visa allocation under secretary of labor or commerce or even under DHS which is where USCIS sits. But no - visa allocation happens completely outside of USCIS. Think about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
If I frame this another way, it might make sense. Atleast till the loopholes are covered and strict regulations enforced, they may like to prefer to be anti-indian. No offence please. It is a fact they are in huge numbers to cope with compared to any other country. Just that they can not give GC to every one only find out that next year, the applicants would double!
Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Well said Q!
It also could be to avoid dictatorship by a single entity say USCIS in this case - like a checks and balances...
Atleast to console myself that I'm not paying taxes or spending the best part of my career in an anti-Indian community/country
Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
No offense taken Samrat. I think the problem with this kind of thinking is it runs contrary to my belief that country quota is discriminatory. Yes there are a billion indians and a billion chinese. But think other way round each individual is only 1/7 billionth of humanity. So why worry what country he or she was born in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
GRP - checks and balances is the closest explanation. On another note - certain actions of certain agencies or individuals don't make entire country or community pro or anti Indian. At least I didn't mean it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by geeaarpee
Agreed! Also, in this case, one entity's actions reflects or adheres to the entire country or government's intention isn't it? Isn't that the reason we all left our beautiful home country - if we had a better government, we all believe that we would have had a better management, better infrastructure, better community and so on... and we wouldn't have left our country first place atleast at this volume which affects another country's immigration system right?Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Q,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Overall, DOS deals with slightly more cases than USCIS for numerically limited visa classes. However, I agree it is about politics. There was a huge power fight originally - DOS won. Of the two choices, I would prefer DOS over USCIS any day. Under DOL - you are joking, right!
The facts about who has benefited over the last 5 years do not sustain your claim of bias against India, if indeed there is any hidden agenda as you purport.
It seems fairly clear who the Winners and Losers are. It does not appear to be India as you indicate.
Attachment 340
I think in theory that could be right. But in reality does government truly represent society. In reality does government work in unison? I guess those things are always less than ideal - so different people will draw different conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by geeaarpee
Spec - you can create graphs and charts of chronic backlogs and then see which country suffered most - I guarantee you that in EB category it is India. I think we both know the reality very well to be debating about it !! And since you also think it is about politics then I guess that puts this little debate to rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
p.s. - I was not joking about DoL. They could've been one of the contenders for EB immigration which they can very well argue they should've the right to determine visa allocation. But as I said earlier the question of visa allocation is more political than economical and hence visa allocation sits under DoS.
I do not question that India has the biggest backlogs. There are many reasons for that - not all political, but let's not go there.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
However, none of the reasons have anything to do with DOL, DOS or USCIS policy. They just follow and enforce the laws of the land relating to immigration.
Some of the problems that led to the backlogs can certainly be traced to DOL performance leading to the creation of the Labor backlogs. Most everything flowed from that starting point.
My last on the subject.
Spec - I agree with everything you said here. But then none of that really addresses what I was referring to - which is:
Backlog of Indians applications is part due to DoS' policy of having such backlog continue. A case in point was the way visa spillover rules were interpreted until AC21 which changed the visa spillover from vertical to horizontal. Second case in point is as I said the way ROW was flushed between 2007-2009. Third even tody we don't see quarterly spillover as required by law. These are very specific things and probably you would agree that DoS apparently acted in a manner that hurt EB-IC backlog.
But I will rest it too since you already did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator