Printable View
http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/...1-visa-reforms
Finally there is hope to stop the EB1C abuse. I know some of the people on the forum do not like to discuss the EB1C abuse but this is a very very important bill for candidates with PDs in 2010 and beyond. If this bill sees the light then EB2I wait times will decrease drastically.
I agree. I have no love for Grassley and his ilk but hopefully, this will reduce the abuse of L1-EB1C route and will also hopefully end the practice by some companies of abusing H1Bs. I am not pissed off at people taking advantage of L1-EB1C route. If I could take it, I also would do the same. I have a grievance against this crazy category called EB1C where all you need is so called "1 year managerial experience out of US" and all other criteria are thrown out of window.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagan01
But Jhonty this bill is not just that...it is going to totally Kill H1B .. If you read it ... Totally EVC model cannot work anymore.. Each h1 b filling needs job posted for One month... No company will wait for you for that long... H1B just for 3 years , if you need extension fir 6th year you need approved i140.. Just to name few concerns...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonty Rhodes
This is going to effect people already on h1b who seek extension who are not in Fulltime job...
The 3 year thing is good for employees. If it was 9 years then employers will wait 8 years to file PERM. If it is 3 years then they wait 2 years to file the PERM. You tell me which one is better, waiting 8 years or waiting 2 years ?Quote:
Originally Posted by mesan123
Perm approval now takes nearly one year, if you are audited it is gonna be almost 2 years... Not only 3 ear issue.... This new law is gonna be killer for EVC model...this bill is not gonna curb EB1 c catogery in anyway... It is gonna increase filling in that quota as big It staffing companies who bring H1B from india will file for the GC immediately ... And our backlog gonna stay the same ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagan01
PERM approval is completely unrelated. If the PERM was filed in a timely manner and then goes into audit then the employee will still be able to get the extension. This bill will force employers to start GC process within the first year as the PERM will have to filed before the second year ends.Quote:
Originally Posted by mesan123
If you read the bill then it is very evident that EB1C abuse shall be reduced. The much awaited wage requirements that are already in place for EB2 shall be applied to EB1C and that will reduce the EB1C filings drastically. All the spillover will come to EB2.
Please do not try to mislead people. This bill is good and would reduce the EB1C filings and that would in turn benefit EB2. Personally, I do not gain much as the fruits of this bill will not show up until FY2017 and by then I hope to get the GC as my PD is in Jan 2009.
However, I urge all the 2010, 2011 EB2I candidates to spread the word and support the bill.
Thanks this is good info. I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagan01
If you want people to support - the best way to do is simply state facts. Don't try to imply if anybody else is misleading. I don't think mesan was trying to mislead or anything. S/he was just stating his/her side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagan01
Well just putting my POV is not misleading... Before posting the msg i read the bill... I agree to disagree with you... I m not trashing whole Bill .. But part of the bill will definitely have major effect on people currently working in USA who are waiting to file for their i485... You think perm rule is ok .. I disagree as one month add time for contracting job would be disaster... There are 50-60% of H1b community who work as contractors...the people i m telling about are folks contracting for years and on payroll of small companies, it will effect all of them...The bill definitely needs some portion of it to be corrected, if not it will affect major portion of people in backlog... Finding fulltime job is not easy now a days... It got worse with years...many clients don't want to go through hassle of H1B and GC ... But are ok with contracting ...Just My POV...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagan01
Jagan on a personal note...this is discussion board as we can post our opinions, it is not about trashing others if they present difference in opinion with you.. Try not to be rude..
Thank you Q...yes i was just staying my view after i read the bill...Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Q,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
messan's statements are misleading because there is no truth in some of the comments he/she made. I provided the exact explanation.
- First messan made the statement about 3 years restriction being bad. I provided the explanation that it would force employers to file PERM sooner (mostly in the 1st year of employment) and messan had no counter. This is very critical point. Just go back a few years and imagine how different life would have been if the PERM was filed in 2nd year.
- Later he/she stated that this will increase EB1C filings. That was the limit. I encourage everyone to read the summary of the bill can read and understand that prevailing wage requirements would decrease the total L1/EB1C filings.
Below is the relevant portion from the summary and there are more details in the bill:
"In addition, the bill includes several reforms of the L-1 visa program. These include establishment of a wage floor for L-1 workers; authority for the Department of Homeland Security to investigate, audit and enforce compliance with L-1 program requirements; assurance that intra-company transfers occur between legitimate branches of a company and don’t involve “shell” facilities; and a change to the definition of “specialized knowledge” to ensure that L-1 visas are reserved only for truly key personnel."
Finally, I think you know how much I hate the EB1C abuse. I may have sounded rude and that is why you needed to step in, but I feel that individual is just stating things that are not correct and when challenged he/she has no counter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagan01
Please try to be courteous on others...i did not mislead anyone,if you cannot understand..what do you mean i didnot counter...i am not here on a fight with you, or to prove to you something ... i was stating my opinion and it is nothing wrong...i m courteous..you are trying to act personally here and commenting on me ... I did give my explanation why i feel this bill will affect Folks... It does not affect Full time Folks... Yes it will kill small Indian companies... But Big players like Accenture, CTS will have no effect... They are the ones who apply for most of the H1B...
Again let me remind you , i read the bill... Yes i still feel 3 year limit on H1B is a risk...i m putting my assumptions based on what i have seen ...Most of the employers would not prefer to sponsor for GC that soon... They need minimum one year time before they can start the Process... Once they start the process it takes 8-10 months time before they can file for Perm.. Perm approvals are taking around 9 months now.. This are facts not assumption ...by the time you get Perm approved it will be almost 3 years.. This rule tells you Need I 140 approved if you need extension for your 4Th year..
I feel if this rule is incorporated for H1B... They should make reform to remove Perm from GC process ... If you can or Q/SPec/Gurus can enlighten me if what i mentioned is wrong... I m against the bill if is going to make life miserable for people already waiting in backlog..
Lastly don't vent anger on folks or be offensive on others....
Regarding that bill, here is the bottom line.
If it is coming from Grassley ( an anti immigrant) and Durbin ( A pro union anti business democrat) that IS a bad bill.
H1B is meant to get resources quickly without going through the lengthy green card process. Any move that goes against the original intent of H1B, kills/damages H1B program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagan01
Regardless if this bill makes it to law (Senate 'Hold,Filibuster,Vote' + House process + Presidential veto) , the minimum this bill will do is increase the L1 to EB1C conversion rate in the short term.
IMHO, this bill is just smoke screen for Grassley ,Sessions et al to influence GOP primary.
Mesan,Quote:
Originally Posted by mesan123
I am very curious to know where those numbers come from.
Iatiam
Unlike you, I believe in facts and not in assumptions. The employers will be forced to start PERM sooner or they risk losing the employee. IF they do not want the employee then they would not file even after 6 years. There is no requirement of minimum one year before starting PERM. Also you are wrong in including the PERM approval time in the 3 year scenario. Read about AC21. Below is the explanation which proves that if PERM was filed 365 prior to 3 year ending then the employee can get extensions.Quote:
Originally Posted by mesan123
As long as the company files the PERM 365 days prior to the 3 year limit, the employee can continue to get 1 year extensions. After I140 is approved the employee can get 3 year extensions. Below is the relevant text from the bill that you claim to have read. Most of the people here are aware of AC21 and the bill still retains the AC21 exceptions. If you still do not understand then please read the link http://www.immihelp.com/visas/h1b/h1...d-6-years.html for an explanation of AC21 106 (a)
"SEC. 109. LIMITATION ON EXTENSION OF H–1B PETITION.
10 Section 214(g)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality
11 Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
12 ‘‘(4)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the
13 period of authorized admission as a nonimmigrant de-
14 scribed in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) may not exceed 3
15 years.
16 ‘‘(B) The period of authorized admission as a non-
17 immigrant described in subparagraph (A) who is the bene-
18 ficiary of an approved employment-based immigrant peti-
19 tion under section 204(a)(1)(F) may be authorized for a
20 period of up to 3 additional years if the total period of
21 stay does not exceed 6 years, except for an extension under
22 section 104(c) or 106(b) of the American Competitiveness
23 in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (8 U.S.C. 1184
24 note).’’.
The above excerpt is from the 18th page of the 175 page bill. Please read to learn for yourself.
I based it on no of oeople working as contractors then FT employeesQuote:
Originally Posted by iatiam
Jagan - I understand. Generally speaking I am against speaking ill of fellow immigrants. But I liked the provision of this bill that says - have PERM like wage determination for EB1C. I think that is totally fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagan01
On your disagreement with others - just stick to facts. That will speak louder than anything else. Many people don't mean bad or ill when they oppose things. So I personally start with assumption that they mean good - it's just that they lack information.
We are all grownups here. So I don't mean to tell you how to behave. I am sorry - if I come across like that. I hope you understand.
I admit I haven't had time to read the proposal sufficiently to understand all the implications (only 3-4 times!).
My initial impression is it's a mixed bag.
I can understand some of the reservations expressed, yet it also has much to commend it.
I think the idea of prioritizing who gets the limited H1B numbers is a good one, particularly the idea of those on higher wage levels having a higher priority.
There's also a nice section mandating that past, present or future employees have the right to their non / immigration paperwork within 21 days of making a request to the employer for it (Section 122).
The requirement that employers have to provide proof of paying previous H1B workers is also a welcome step.
It's probably academic though, since it has little change of passage IMO. Maybe it will be attached to another Bill, if it comes up for a vote.
On a completely different note, it's very disappointing to see that USCIS have said that, for AOS applicants, the Final Action Dates will govern the ability to file an I-485 in December. That's an effective retrogression of 2 years from the 01JUL09 that is in effect for November. http://www.uscis.gov/visabulletininfo
Quote:
Next Month’s Adjustment of Status Filing Chart
For Family-Sponsored Filings:
You may use the Dates for Filing Visa Applications chart for December 2015.
For Employment-Based Filings:
You must use the Application Final Action Dates chart in the Department of State Visa Bulletin for December 2015
December 2015
Status quo is a very powerful force. The reason why there has practically been no meaningful change to the H-1B program since 1990 is because there are balancing forces between pro and anti groups
Those who want increased enforcement are afraid that this will inevitably lead to calls for an increased number annually and would rather leave the status quo in place
Those who want increased numbers are afraid of increased enforcement and would rather have the laws loosely enforced on current numbers
The fate of such a wide ranging stand alone bill is slim at best
Although commenting about the bill is purely an academic exercise, I am slowly starting to warm to Senator Grassley's point of view. Yes, he is overall anti-immigrant, but I do think that he is coming from a good place in this particular instance.
I personally know of people with PhDs from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who have had to go back to their home countries (many to India) or to seek a job in some other country because they didn't get the H1B lottery two years in a row. Given most higher education research is funded by the US government, the inability of a PhD or MS from an university such as MIT to remain in this country and contribute presents a massive loss to the US.
Clearly, the intent of congress was not to fund another countries research capabilities! As such, the provisions that Grassley has introduced are actually fixing this issue and prioritizing those with advanced degrees from US instititutions over all others. Critics to this provision are probably unaware that the US is the only country in the world that educates students for free, and has no provision for them to continue on and contribute to the economy.
That grassley has prioritized those with advanced degrees first tells me that he means well.
As for mesan's arguments - while everyone can try to make a better life for themselves, including by bending the rules, it doesn't preclude the fact that the intent of the H1B program was never to become a software contractor program. If anything mesan's claim that 60% of H1B works are software contractors who are working part-time reinforces the need for H1B reform. Unfortunately, I have no sympathy for those who have come to this country by bending the rules or misrepresenting their qualifications or intent. I believe in brutal meritocracy.
Yes i can answer you. I am not talking about people who faked their resumes or bend their rules, ( i can tell for sure, as they have to go through more clearance level as it is federal client) .. They work for federal client as contractors through Teradata as prime vendor.. As Teradata is the partner for project.. Tera data contracting wing doesn't have full time jobs .. All their jobs are contracts... So folks working through them are contractors.. They have their H1B genuinely.. I m talking about them.. They have been my colleagues for last 5 years.. They all are so strong technical folks, really excel in their jobs.. Their jobs are secured but cannot be sponsored as federal does not sponsor H1B and same applies with prime project implementer company... their h1b is held by the sub contractors of the prime vendor and they have their GC process started with those companies..Quote:
Originally Posted by mechanical13
Gave all these details as everyone think all body shoppers are fake, or so on, there are good companies and good candidates as well....but i also 100% do not support bending rules either.....working in EVC model doesn't mean bending the rule in anyway...they are getting their extensions legally....what i felt is as it will impact folks like these...
I want the reform, all i am telling , is certain clauses in it is bad, which definitely needs to be modified, just for stating opinion, no need of crucifying me either....
Mesan - thanks for clarifying. I think your response should also assuage previous concerns expressed by forum members. Any change is going to eventually going to impact not only those who are bending the rules, but also a small number of genuine people. Sadly, that's the cost of reform, and it is unavoidable.Quote:
Originally Posted by mesan123
Nobody is crucifying you for stating your opinion; glad to hear that you acknowledge the need for reform to prevent abuse.
mech,Quote:
Originally Posted by mechanical13
You missed an important point in this discussion. H1Bs are not Phd visas. Neither are they IIT visas. They are visas for general employees. These anti-immigrants cannot publicly say they are anti-immigrants. They will say they care about american people. Grassley has drawn farm subsidies despite being a millionaire farmer. Yes it may be legal, but he exploited the loop hole even though he ddn't need it. Now he cares about american people ! Yes Jeff Sessions care about american people too. --- because they are all anti-immigrant. Add Steve King to that list of amercian lovers !
That is the modus operandi of these anti-immigrants. Grassley writes his bills after discussing with ant-immigrant groups like NUSA.
Regarding full timers vs consultants -- Being a consultant for 12 years in this country and a full timer now for the last 3 years, I can say from my experience consultants are much more competitive than full timers. Companies cannot fire full timers so easily, that is the reason many full timers survive in their jobs.
Quote:
Phony Farmers Exposed (Reader’s Digest)
Other members of Congress have profited from subsidies directly. Arkansas Democratic senator Blanche Lincoln’s family received more than $700,000 over a ten-year period, and Republican Iowa senator Chuck Grassley, a millionaire deficit hawk, reaped $238,000 in federal dollars from 1995 to 2006.
Respectfully mech - I think you are wrong on this one. H1B is not research visa. It is "skilled labor" visa. Research labor is indeed skilled labor. But there are other kinds of skilled labor too. EB1 was a very easy route for PHD folks until the government has tightened those requirements.Quote:
Originally Posted by mechanical13
My own niece is a super duper smart PHD person - a topper in the topmost colleges in India and here who hasn't yet found a job. But I don't blame H1B for that. Hi end research and H1B are two different market needs. You should blame the politicians for not understanding and implementing priorities rather than H1Bs who are fulfilling a crucial need for America. Trust me America is reaping literally trillions on the back of H1Bs. Not billions. I said trillions. India has millions of software programmers. H1Bs are barely 60-100K per year. It is not easy to get H1B. And then it is not easy to have your company sponsor your GC.
I never challenge the wisdom of the market or wisdom of crowd. Be it the price of Amazon stock or the result of Bihar elections. If there are arbitrage opportunities you or I can found - we'd be already millionaires or billionaires.
p.s. - I wouldn't necessarily lament a smart guy having to go back to India. The likelihood of a smart guy wasting his potential running the H1B and GC mill is very high here in US. Of course India has its own challenges. So I am frankly opinion less (shocking!!) on where a smart Indian might fare better if he is subject to H1B and GC cycle.
Mesan, I will admit that I haven't read the entire bill so far. So, I am not fully aware of the impact on H1Bs by this bill if it becomes a law. I also haven't given it a much thought and I would admit that. The reason for that is because being a physician and working for a not-for-profit organization/hosital, my successive H1Bs have fallen under cap-exemption so I never had to face lottery issue for H1B so far. My ignorance on this issue stems from this fact that I have always had no problem with H1B renewals so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by mesan123
My biggest concern is L1-EB1C as my comment mentions. In last 2 years, I have seen 14 people that I know who all are engineers of different kinds getting their GC through EB1C. Most of them came here in 2011-2012. GCs were filed after a year and wallah, within 6 months they had GCs in their hands. None of these 14 people studied here. They were all working in the same city in India for the same company.
There is another engineer with them who is still waiting for his GC. He came here as student in 2007 and did his Masters in US. He started working for the same company in 2009 but since he hasn't been sent back to India, they filed his GC in 2011 under EB2 and obviously he is still waiting. All other 14 people, earn less than this guy and also are junior to him in terms of position. But they all have their GCs and this one doesn't.
This unfairness angers me. As I said, I am not against people taking advantage of this. I am against the lack of stringent criteria in this category. Unfortunately, being a physician I would never qualify for EB1C even if I want to.