Gs- you've been awesome. Keep posting all CIR bill specific stuff on the CIR thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
Gs- you've been awesome. Keep posting all CIR bill specific stuff on the CIR thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
I hope gang of 8 remain united in opposing same sex amendment by Leahy.
http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/...igrations.html
It doesn't matter - this is designed to weaken republican support to the bill. Think about it .. a democrat trying to weaken republican support to the bill. Who would've thunk that!!Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
I think its more to appease the gay rights lobby. Now he can say he tried.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Yes. Certainly. Plus it is much more harmful to GOP if immigration reform fails.
Yesterday Chuck Schumer insisted on LGBT immigration. Now when we are talking about immigration - what % is LGBT. So when somebody has to announce this - it is not a good sign.Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
LGBT has a very powerful lobby. Democrats bank on them as their reliable vote bank. Democrats will continue to push.. It is upto GOP to deny it to democrats. Again plain politics !Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
Probably not. They will keep the house unless they got some other issues. Even CIR passes democrats will win as the bill is pushed mainly by democrats. After CIR GOP need to wait many years. But again if immigration issue is not raised at the time of elections and if GOP played soft they can get some more votes and also Latino group turnover may be lesser. I cannot buy the point that GOP will lose house because of latino votes. Of course it is nice to get vote from them to improve their tally
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/0...igration-vote/
The article is vague and again he is not committing on what will come up for vote.
The House Judiciary sub-committee is holding hearings this week on both the AG Bill and E-verify Bill on May 16th
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hearing113.html
This is puzzling since the E-Verify hearing was held already in February of this year
http://freebeacon.com/trust-but-e-verify/
Hello Guys - does anybody know what this means -
USCIS Menu(http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...RCRD#Immigrant) of Potential Immigrant (EB-1 & EB-2) or Nonimmigrant Visa Pathways for Foreign Entrepreneurs.
USCIS intends to expand(http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...0045f3d6a1RCRD) Entrepreneurs in Residence Initiative (ERI) program that can open additional pathways to various employment/investment related immigrant and nonimmigrant visa pathways. Read on.
I saw this on immigration-law.com/
Nothing will happen to GOP... because most of the educated Americans are against giving Amnesty to 11 million.. (the path to citizenship) So if immigration reform fails it will harm Democrats only.. (but this administration will do some executive order at that point that too only for dreamers and illegals). Again A country's immigration is only Legal immigration.. they should not give amnesty every 20 years to accomodate illegals (by keeping the legals hostages by democrats!). Most of the illegals won't work after they are legalised and they will be on welfare. Think about the big picture. Politicians wants the issue to be alive, they don't wan't to solve it. Most of the Senators and Congressmen's were lawyers in their previous profession. So any person can imagine what will happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
There were no updates posted to the CIR Senate Judiciary Page about the amendments today. What is the frequency in which this get debated?
I think all the amendments considered yesterday were updated already.The next Executive Business Meeting is on May 14 (Tuesday) and there should be further updates thenQuote:
Originally Posted by seahawks2012
The most recent press release shows that Sen.Leahy after concurring with Sen.Grassley is going to address Title 4 regarding non-immigrant visas on May 14th
http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/se...form-next-week
Interestingly I spelt 4 in Roman numerals and I got 2 asterisks as it is the same name as the other immigration website!
Thank you GS. Good data point:Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
"Leahy said the Committee will again meet on Tuesday and Thursday of next week, and future days as needed to complete consideration of the bipartisan legislation before the Memorial Day recess."
Title 4 amendments will be "truly" bipartisan. Anti-immigrants like Grassley want to mess up with non-immigrant visas. Union leaning democrats want it too. So it will be bipartisan for sure. Watch out !Quote:
Originally Posted by seahawks2012
If waiting for a Green Card is exhausting and one is looking for new places to immigrate-this is another option to consider
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/...ntcmp=features
There's a per country limit though. So you won't be able to go there for 40 yrs.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
Another teaser article but no definite timeline
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-va...migration-push
Sen.Portman on immigration
http://www.newsrecord.org/news/campu...a4bcf6878.html
Portman (R-Ohio) said he’s not in favor of mass deportation, a topic brought up by some Republican candidates during the 2012 elections, and he is not in favor of general amnesty for all illegal immigrants. Rather, he is in favor of reform that is somewhere between those two ends of the spectrum.
I keep hearing this a lot from the Republicans.What are they trying to say? Is this where the Bill is headed?
Republicans dont want illegals to have citizenship. that's the hang up. they are ok with RPI status or even LPR status - just no citizenship.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
To vizcard
Another fence-sitter with no clear views expressed one way or the other
http://www.whby.com/index.php/News/WHBY_News/102345
On an optimistic note he may be one of the more persuadable yes votes in the GOP but it is too late in the Senate to split the package.
The real fight is in the House
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.c...ght-plan.html/
Hi Gurus,
Please clarify, whether the CIR 2013 will create a big issue for all H1B employees working in the client site under EC or EVC model as given in the CIR Bill (H1B Outplacement section, Page 684 ad 685), it is really sensationalised in TOI
http://prashanthiblog.com/prashanthi...rovisions.aspx
http://www.ogletreedeakins.com/publi...E2%80%94update
http://articles.timesofindia.indiati...on-reform-bill
This is going to mean a surge in green card filing by Indian IT companies. That will allow them to place candidates at client site.
On another note - this provision actually will reduce the exploitation and abuse of H1B employees. So I don't understand what is the cause for worry?
Finally - i am sure that eventually this will be a forward looking provision rather than retroactive (in the final bill). So hopefully that will rule out any impact on existing H1Bs.
The entire CIR is too good to be true. So even if CIR were to pass with this kind of amendment ... that CIR will be extremely positive to all backlogged countries and candidates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GC4ALL
CIR could help Legal immigrants as per this publication.
http://www.thirdway.org/publications/692
To GC4ALL
please pay attention to the amendment process this week.Senator hatch has a number of amendments proposed to bring the Bill more in line with the I-squared Act but it is doubtful if the democrats and/or Senator Grassley will agree.These may come up for discussion on Thursday
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wir...2#.UZGZSspxrQg
http://news.yahoo.com/business-labor...005508823.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by GC4ALL
Yes it will affect the outplacement model but as Q points out - in a good way. Downside is that fewer companies (and hence employees) will be eligible for H1s but upside is that those with H1 will be treated well.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
I don't quite remember the exact language of the bill, but it appeared to be vague in terms of timing. I haven't read the amendments related to those in detail.
They will take up this topic tomorrow so tune in to the live webcast if you can.
This is part of the CIR that was pushed by anti-immigrant: Grassley and Union guy: Durbin. Many lawyers seem to think that big corporations introduced this language. I don't think large corporations like Microsoft supported it. I speculate this is how it might have happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by GC4ALL
This is part of Durbin/Grassley H1B bill they had been pushing for a while. They included that into the CIR. Grassley is anti-immgrant. However what gives traction to this language is the union/Durbin who is probably the second ranking democratic leader in Senate after Schumer.
Parties that were involved in high skill part of CIR is Compete America( all major companies and **). ** founder is from University background. He and the almighty pappu seems to think in the lines of Durbin. If you read their forum, you can easily figure that out. People who should have opposed this, ** or compete america didn't do it because it didn't affect their agenda.
Consulting companies on the other hand dealt with laws against them with the attitude, "it doesn't affect me, it will only affect small companies". When law was made applicable to all kind of consulting companies, there were none representing their interests in the negotiation process.
Lawyers who cry foul against the law targeting consulting companies, didn't do anything to even fight the Jan 8 memo. All they did was to come up with some sort of document after 1 month after the memo came out. AILA is not willing to do anything about it. They just cry foul when they are going to lose a large chunk of their business.
IMO if you are concerned about this law in CIR, why wait till CIR ? Move over to some full time position and take care of yourself !
Wrong. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/us...pagewanted=allQuote:
Originally Posted by gcq
I fully support these provisions. Will keep bodyshoppers out and the H1Bs that come will be treated better and have more opportunities.Quote:
Originally Posted by nytimes
abcx - i never thought I would say this - but I really agree with you on this one! I think it will be good for Indians and good for Americans.
The only thing I don't like here is that it gives unfair advantage to American IT companies. But then Indian IT companies never had the guts to become truly engineering companies. Such a shame and hence I wouldn't complain about that either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by abcx13
H1Bs coming to US ?Quote:
Originally Posted by abcx13
Route1: Through the same consulting companies
Route2: Education route ( which is illegal as per the current law)
These laws will block the first route. That is all what it does.
As for consulting companies guts, I will say they don't have the guts to stand up for themselves.
Consulting companies are in consulting business. There is no point comparing against Microsoft/Googles. They are 2 different business models.
This from Senator Rubio's office
"Rubio "disappointed" Judiciary Comm rejected Sessions' biometric database amendment, will "fight to add" it on Senate floor, office says"
For more than one decade Indian companies had unfair advantage by hiring only Indians with much lower rates than American companies. Also those who were working on Indian companies had job security with guranteed green card. If this provisons are done then everyone will become almost equal and talent will be rewarded moreQuote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
After all the positive energy today-a needlessly downbeat article
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...374.html?hp=f2
BTW-I felt today that the committee both Republicans and Democrats piled on the H-1B Program.Did other forum members feel the same?
It is a good article. I won't say needless. It is just pointing to the reality. It looks too real. Obviously, house group has problems coming up with the bill and it is not sure if they would come with that at all or not. There was another article where Gutierrez had said if bill does not come by end of the month then it won't come at all. I do not know whether it is a good thing or bad thing. If house ends up taking the senate bill, this is not such a bad thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
Correct me if I am wrong but all it takes for the consulting companies (big or small) to not be treated as a H1-B dependent employer is just to apply labor/I-140 for their employees just to make sure their (H1 + L1) count is less than 15% right? An amendment by Grassley related to this was also defeated yesterday.
So as per CIR as of today, all EC,EVC should be fine as long as the employer makes sure to apply Labor/I140 for at least 85% of his workforce and pays 500$ for each employee that is in EC or EVC model. Am I missing anything here? Agreed that it is not an easy task for any company to make sure that at least 85% of its employees are on GC path. But still it is not a dead end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by abcx13
Um, the PERM has to be approved and then the employee can file 485 immediately if there is no backlog so the EVC loses leverage over the employee and that's probably why they're not going to apply in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by feedmyback
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/29...than-obamacare
Even though the article is against the reform, look at the last para where Steve king says that they would produce some kind of amnesty bill in the conference which would be put on the floor for up or down vote. This seems like where it is heading which seems a good thing.
Agreed... eventually the employee will have the upper hand and that is good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by abcx13
To abcx13 & feedmyback
The Bill is quite punitive and it appears like the Indian IT firms were foremost in their minds when they wrote this part of the Bill.
http://blog.fosterquan.com/2013/05/