Bills, Rules & Politics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rocketfast

There was an article from Jessica Vaughan of CIS a few weeks ago with CIS's wishlist to ban. One of their requests was the need to re-certify already approved PERM as the economy is very different than what it was a few years ago. My sense is that it is hinting at exploring that.

---

These things will require rule-making. So not an immediate impact. Also, how much of these see the light at the end of the day remains to be seen. For example, they could also stratify additional certification requirements only for PERM jobs that are paying below certain wage levels. Anything that's too burdensome administratively on the businesses will face resistance IMO. That said, they may ask employers to attest that the PERM job offer is still intact and the business is viable when the 485 AOS is filed. But they are doing here is to keep this is a focus topic to move the attention from other mainstream negative news cycle. So the rhetoric is (and will be) be charged on these topics as well as other topics that plays into the base until November. Bottom line, reacting to the actual news and not to rumors tends to be helpful during these times!

Also for the sake of kicks, this is what Jessica Vaughan actually wanted (full wish list) when the 4/22 ban (prior ban) went into effect ;)

Next, the president's order lists a number of important exceptions to this "suspension". These include:

Green card holders.
Medical workers and researchers applying for immigrant visas, and their families. It is not clear if these applicants can now bypass the long waiting list for family and employment green cards, or if this applies only to those applicants whose turn has arrived. I suspect the former.
Applicants in the aforementioned, extremely controversial, EB-5 program, which is a pet category of Jared Kushner, who leads the White House immigration reform team. For more on this program, see the Center's extensive archive of EB-5 research by my colleague David North.
Spouses, children, and prospective adoptees of U.S. citizens.
Relatives of members of the military.
Afghans and Iraqis who have worked for the U.S. government.
Any other alien whose entry is determined to be in the national interest.

She wanted to ban all of these folks!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenzone

Also for the sake of kicks, this is what Jessica Vaughan actually wanted (full wish list) when the 4/22 ban (prior ban) went into effect ;)

Next, the president's order lists a number of important exceptions to this "suspension". These include:

Green card holders.
Medical workers and researchers applying for immigrant visas, and their families. It is not clear if these applicants can now bypass the long waiting list for family and employment green cards, or if this applies only to those applicants whose turn has arrived. I suspect the former.
Applicants in the aforementioned, extremely controversial, EB-5 program, which is a pet category of Jared Kushner, who leads the White House immigration reform team. For more on this program, see the Center's extensive archive of EB-5 research by my colleague David North.
Spouses, children, and prospective adoptees of U.S. citizens.
Relatives of members of the military.
Afghans and Iraqis who have worked for the U.S. government.
Any other alien whose entry is determined to be in the national interest.

She wanted to ban all of these folks!!

---

If you really want to reduce the unemployment rate, hire all of them into USCIS and that way they can clear the backlogs and also employ the citizens as they are the ones most eligible for govt jobs

If the DOL revokes an underlying PERM which can be done at any time it affects the ability to extend h1b based on approved I-140s. I think Obama's AC 21 job portability rule doesn't protect the post 6th year extension in that case. This could be a round about way to potentially disrupt and work around post 6th year h1b extensions based on approved I-140s by making them go through a re-certification.

USCIS Job Portability Rule Takes Effect
UNITED STATES
United States

A new USCIS regulation intended to ease restrictions on job mobility for foreign workers awaiting employment-based permanent residence took effect today. The new rule also establishes grace periods for non-immigrant workers before and after their employment, and provides automatic work authorization extensions to adjustment applicants and certain other classes of foreign nationals who have timely filed for renewal of an employment authorization document (EAD).



The rule codifies USCIS's interpretations of two key statutes, the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21), enacted in 2000, and the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA), enacted in 1998. It is one of the Obama Administration's key executive actions on employment-based immigration, and is intended to help enable U.S. businesses to retain and develop highly-skilled foreign workers and reduce the burdens of lengthy immigrant visa backlogs on employment-based adjustment applicants.



Key provisions of the final rule are summarized below.



Portability and Priority Date Retention for I-140 Beneficiaries



The new regulation eases the impact of I-140 petition revocations and codifies certain longstanding agency policies on I-140 job portability.



A foreign national whose I-140 petition has been approved for 180 days or more will not have the petition automatically revoked if the employer goes out of business or withdraws the petition on or after January 17, 2017. However, the foreign national will need a new job offer or a new I-140 petition to obtain employment-based permanent residence.



An I-140 beneficiary whose petition is revoked will be able to use the priority date for a subsequent I-140 petition, unless the reason for revocation was fraud, material misrepresentation, invalidation or revocation of the underlying labor certification or material error in the approval of the petition.



Consistent with prior policy, the beneficiary of a pending I-140 will be able to port to new employment after his or her adjustment of status application has been pending for 180 days or more, as long as the pending I-140 petition was approvable when filed and remained approvable for 180 days after the filing of the adjustment application.



Employment Authorization for Certain Approved I-140 Beneficiaries



The regulation allows E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1 and O-1 nonimmigrants with an approved I-140 petition to apply for a one-year employment authorization document if their priority date is backlogged and they can show compelling circumstances to justify the need for employment authorization, such as a medical emergency or significant disruption to the employer.



Grace Periods for Nonimmigrant Workers



E, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN nonimmigrants whose employment is terminated early will be accorded one grace period of up to 60 days during each validity period, which will enable them to extend, change or otherwise maintain status or prepare to depart the United States.



Approved E, L-1, and TN nonimmigrants will receive a 10-day grace period before and after their validity period, as is currently available to H-1B, O and P nonimmigrants. They will be able to enter the United States 10 days before their start date to prepare for employment, and will have 10 days at the end of their period of stay to take action to extend, change or otherwise maintain status, or prepare for departure from the United States.



Employment is not authorized during the grace periods, except for H-1B foreign nationals who are porting to new employment.



H-1B Extensions Beyond the Sixth Year



The regulation codifies USCIS's longstanding policies on H-1B extensions beyond the sixth year, with some additional requirements.

Post-sixth year extensions will be available to foreign nationals who are not currently in H-1B status, as long as they previously held that status and remain eligible for an additional period of H-1B admission, consistent with current policy.
An H-1B nonimmigrant will become ineligible for a one-year post-sixth year extension if he or she fails to apply for adjustment of status or an immigrant visa within one year of the date an immigrant visa becomes available to him or her.
A one-year post-sixth year H-1B extension will cease to be available if, at the time the extension is filed, the foreign national's labor certification is no longer valid, his or her I-140 has been denied or revoked or an adjustment application or an immigrant visa has been approved or denied.
An H-1B whose approved I-140 petition is withdrawn 180 days or more after approval will remain eligible for a three-year extension unless the I-140 was withdrawn for fraud, material misrepresentation, material USCIS error, or revocation or invalidation of the underlying labor certification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by srimurthy

If you really want to reduce the unemployment rate, hire all of them into USCIS and that way they can clear the backlogs and also employ the citizens as they are the ones most eligible for govt jobs

---

That would be an interesting proposal.

In the midst of all other hysteria, this part of the EO is getting little to no mention anywhere. What are the ramifications here? As far as I could research, if DOL revokes a PERM then the I-140 revocation protection from the AC21 rule is lost with it. This will have implications on post 6th year extension. Especially of interest if ppl. are using the post 6th year extension based on an approved PERM/I-140 filed through their previous employer as they likely won't be aware if the DOL has sent a notice of intent to revoke which automatically kicks in if the employer doesn't respond within 30 days. I suspect why any former employer would actually care to act on any such DOL revoke requests and also I'm not sure what happens if that prior employer went out of business. In continuation from my prior posts, I want to ask the pundits here for thoughts!!

(b) The Secretary of Labor shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, as soon as practicable, and consistent with applicable law, consider promulgating regulations or take other appropriate action to ensure that the presence in the United States of aliens who have been admitted or otherwise provided a benefit, or who are seeking admission or a benefit, pursuant to an EB-2 or EB-3 immigrant visa or an H-1B nonimmigrant visa does not disadvantage United States workers in violation of section 212(a)(5)(A) or (n)(1) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(A) or (n)(1)). The Secretary of Labor shall also undertake, as appropriate, investigations pursuant to section 212(n)(2)(G)(i) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)(G)(i)).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenzone

In the midst of all other hysteria, this part of the EO is getting little to no mention anywhere. What are the ramifications here? As far as I could research, if DOL revokes a PERM then the I-140 revocation protection from the AC21 rule is lost with it. This will have implications on post 6th year extension. Especially of interest if ppl. are using the post 6th year extension based on an approved PERM/I-140 filed through their previous employer. In continuation from my prior posts, I want to ask the pundits here for thoughts!!

(b) The Secretary of Labor shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, as soon as practicable, and consistent with applicable law, consider promulgating regulations or take other appropriate action to ensure that the presence in the United States of aliens who have been admitted or otherwise provided a benefit, or who are seeking admission or a benefit, pursuant to an EB-2 or EB-3 immigrant visa or an H-1B nonimmigrant visa does not disadvantage United States workers in violation of section 212(a)(5)(A) or (n)(1) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(A) or (n)(1)). The Secretary of Labor shall also undertake, as appropriate, investigations pursuant to section 212(n)(2)(G)(i) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)(G)(i)).

---

and consistent with applicable law - does this mean that it has to confirm with AC21 portability law?
pursuant to an EB-2 or EB-3 immigrant visa or an H-1B nonimmigrant - this would impact mostly countries that are backlogged meaning India and to some extent China, and why is this not applicable for EB1, is it because they don't need a PERM?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by srimurthy

and consistent with applicable law - does this mean that it has to confirm with AC21 portability law?
pursuant to an EB-2 or EB-3 immigrant visa or an H-1B nonimmigrant - this would impact mostly countries that are backlogged meaning India and to some extent China, and why is this not applicable for EB1, is it because they don't need a PERM?

---

Yes. Since EB1 doesn't require a PERM. Regardless, I still believe this will require rule-making from DOL. AC21 rule specifically has language protecting a beneficiary from the previous employer (who filed the underlying PERM) going out of business for instance. So I see quite a few conflicts here. This the problem with painting with a broad brush. In some fashion a proper congressional legislation that makes specific changes to address the abuse in the visa system will be much better served. I see many unintended consequences and collateral damage by this using a shovel instead of a scalpel approach!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenzone

In the midst of all other hysteria, this part of the EO is getting little to no mention anywhere. What are the ramifications here? As far as I could research, if DOL revokes a PERM then the I-140 revocation protection from the AC21 rule is lost with it. This will have implications on post 6th year extension. Especially of interest if ppl. are using the post 6th year extension based on an approved PERM/I-140 filed through their previous employer as they likely won't be aware if the DOL has sent a notice of intent to revoke which automatically kicks in if the employer doesn't respond within 30 days. I suspect why any former employer would actually care to act on any such DOL revoke requests and also I'm not sure what happens if that prior employer went out of business. In continuation from my prior posts, I want to ask the pundits here for thoughts!!

(b) The Secretary of Labor shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, as soon as practicable, and consistent with applicable law, consider promulgating regulations or take other appropriate action to ensure that the presence in the United States of aliens who have been admitted or otherwise provided a benefit, or who are seeking admission or a benefit, pursuant to an EB-2 or EB-3 immigrant visa or an H-1B nonimmigrant visa does not disadvantage United States workers in violation of section 212(a)(5)(A) or (n)(1) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(A) or (n)(1)). The Secretary of Labor shall also undertake, as appropriate, investigations pursuant to section 212(n)(2)(G)(i) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)(G)(i)).

---

Regulatory changes take time and the admin does not have much time before the election to make a change and tout that change to garner more votes. This is all about votes and the optics leading to that. If there is a Faux news or Breitshart headline saying, "PERMS TO BE RECERTIFIED!!!", most of their readers will be like, "what?!". But if they say, "Americans are getting their jobs back as we are halting visas", it's more simple and gets traction. Not trying to minimize the seriousness of this clause, but the amount of wrangling it will take to unravel the PERM process accounting for all the different scenarios and AC21 rules, they might as well say no EB2/EB3 for the foreseeable future, only EB1 and EB4/5 until things improve which will take some heavy lifting in Congress. That's why it also says "consistent with applicable law" in which case there is no law on the books which easily accomplishes that (I am not a lawyer, just in case). This is modus operandi for this admin from the get go, they will launch something extreme and then settle for something below that but still temper expectations among their base saying hey at least we did this, the previous guy did nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turbulent_Dragonfly

Regulatory changes take time and the admin does not have much time before the election to make a change and tout that change to garner more votes. This is all about votes and the optics leading to that. If there is a Faux news or Breitshart headline saying, "PERMS TO BE RECERTIFIED!!!", most of their readers will be like, "what?!". But if they say, "Americans are getting their jobs back as we are halting visas", it's more simple and gets traction. Not trying to minimize the seriousness of this clause, but the amount of wrangling it will take to unravel the PERM process accounting for all the different scenarios and AC21 rules, they might as well say no EB2/EB3 for the foreseeable future, only EB1 and EB4/5 until things improve which will take some heavy lifting in Congress. That's why it also says "consistent with applicable law" in which case there is no law on the books which easily accomplishes that (I am not a lawyer, just in case). This is modus operandi for this admin from the get go, they will launch something extreme and then settle for something below that but still temper expectations among their base saying hey at least we did this, the previous guy did nothing.

---

100% agree. I just played out a scenario. As stated in my previous post, all these measures will have to go through rule-making. Its way more rhetoric than anything at this point.

First of all certified Perms cannot be revoked without cause. In other words, unless they find misrepresentation or fraud and prove it, the certifications cannot be revoked. The employer has spent time and money to go through the process and the admin cannot arbitrarily ask them to go through it again unless they are willing to spend the money on behalf of employer. Retroactive application of laws is unconstitutional and in this case, it will have to be done through rule making.

Also, the validity of certifications is codified in law through AC21, but only for those who have already filed 485, at least that is the current interpretation. The Obama admin went the regulation route to add few more protections, but did not go far enough to allow people to file 485 when dates are not current. They originally planned to do that but backed out after their DAPA was met with court challenge.

Worst case, even if the admin goes through rule making, my guess is it would apply for new applications. Having said that, the admin can do anything as there is no precedent for the current admins norms.

My guess is admin will try to rework wage levels to maybe 3 instead of the current 4 levels. They may also push for increasing the wage level with every extension to account for the experience or can force labor market test if staying at same level.

All we can do is guess at this time. There are numerous scenarios that may or may not pan out.

Let’s wait and see how this all plays out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eaglenow

First of all certified Perms cannot be revoked without cause. In other words, unless they find misrepresentation or fraud and prove it, the certifications cannot be revoked. The employer has spent time and money to go through the process and the admin cannot arbitrarily ask them to go through it again unless they are willing to spend the money on behalf of employer. Retroactive application of laws is unconstitutional and in this case, it will have to be done through rule making.

Also, the validity of certifications is codified in law through AC21, but only for those who have already filed 485, at least that is the current interpretation. The Obama admin went the regulation route to add few more protections, but did not go far enough to allow people to file 485 when dates are not current. They originally planned to do that but backed out after their DAPA was met with court challenge.

Worst case, even if the admin goes through rule making, my guess is it would apply for new applications. Having said that, the admin can do anything as there is no precedent for the current admins norms.

My guess is admin will try to rework wage levels to maybe 3 instead of the current 4 levels. They may also push for increasing the wage level with every extension to account for the experience or can force labor market test if staying at same level.

All we can do is guess at this time. There are numerous scenarios that may or may not pan out.

Let’s wait and see how this all plays out.

---

Here is some commentary from Stuart Anderson in Forbes -

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuarta.../#253d2b7a3ce5

Key excerpts. I'm not a lawyer but I would like to get the views of Oracles here or even Q -

1) First, section 212(a)(5)(A) states that a labor certification should be done “at the time of application for a visa and admission.” Wasden said, “There is nothing in the statute that anticipates a continuing labor market test.”

2) American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, passed in 2000, Congress included specific provisions to protect workers who went through labor certification and needed to wait inside the United States (and continue working) until an immigrant visa became available. If an application for adjustment of status has been filed, employers can file extensions for H-1B visa holders to remain beyond 6 years “if 365 days or more have elapsed since – (1) the filing of a labor certification application on the alien’s behalf . . . or (2) the filing of the petition under such section 204(b).”

“There is clear statutory language and direction from Congress, which created provisions to allow workers to stay in the country while they wait for their green card,” said Wasden. “A proposed regulation as indicated in the proclamation would nullify the work of Congress, and I don’t think that will work out well for the government if they try and do that.”

1. There is specific statute about long pending adjustment applications, which explicitly specifies that once 485 stays pending beyond 180 days, the certification will continue to be valid for same or similar jobs. So they cannot revoke certifications for pending 485.

2. For others, it is certainly gray area, but as mentioned by the lawyer above, it can be challenged as the previous regulation stipulates that labor cert is valid for 180 days for filing 140 and expires after that IF 140 is not filed by that time. But there is no regulation that states that labor will expire after filing 140 within the 180 day window. This is due to how the statute is interpreted through current regulations. But one caveat is the “at the time of filing and admission” in statute. This is reason for 140 time window from labor. If they change this to 485 filing, it would get murky.

But doing so now is basically reversing previous regulation. They have to consider the impact of this and evaluate the same similar to reasoning of DACA. This is basically reversing of rules with retroactive effect. This can be done but will be challenged in court.

3. What they can do is enable this for future filings and labor. Again it may be challenged but the impact is not retroactive, which may or may not be turned down by courts.

4. What they can do is rework wage levels to 3 instead of 4, this will in turn raise the average wage.

5. Another provision they could implement is rise in wage level commensurate with experience. So if filed in level 1 for first time, the next extension could force level 2 and so on. If not force a labor test.

There are a few other remote scenarios. But in a nutshell, I think 1 is no go, 2 very difficult, if not impossible, 3 is difficult but possible, will be challenged in court, 4 and 5 pretty likely with 5 kinds stretching it.

The other scenario could be based on wage levels, they can determine whether to recertify.

All of these are speculations, but With this admin anything goes. We can only hope US will remain fair and not do things retroactively.

The article states lca/perm certifications can be revoled or expired.
Can it be done? As both are legal documents without an expiry date. If so, is EAD also impacted or just h1b?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuarta.../#7f639b933ce5

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bloddy1

The article states lca/perm certifications can be revoled or expired.
Can it be done? As both are legal documents without an expiry date. If so, is EAD also impacted or just h1b?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuarta.../#7f639b933ce5

---

Did you see that I posted the same article above and we did have discussions about it. I would encourage you to read above :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eaglenow

1. There is specific statute about long pending adjustment applications, which explicitly specifies that once 485 stays pending beyond 180 days, the certification will continue to be valid for same or similar jobs. So they cannot revoke certifications for pending 485.

2. For others, it is certainly gray area, but as mentioned by the lawyer above, it can be challenged as the previous regulation stipulates that labor cert is valid for 180 days for filing 140 and expires after that IF 140 is not filed by that time. But there is no regulation that states that labor will expire after filing 140 within the 180 day window. This is due to how the statute is interpreted through current regulations. But one caveat is the “at the time of filing and admission” in statute. This is reason for 140 time window from labor. If they change this to 485 filing, it would get murky.

But doing so now is basically reversing previous regulation. They have to consider the impact of this and evaluate the same similar to reasoning of DACA. This is basically reversing of rules with retroactive effect. This can be done but will be challenged in court.

3. What they can do is enable this for future filings and labor. Again it may be challenged but the impact is not retroactive, which may or may not be turned down by courts.

4. What they can do is rework wage levels to 3 instead of 4, this will in turn raise the average wage.

5. Another provision they could implement is rise in wage level commensurate with experience. So if filed in level 1 for first time, the next extension could force level 2 and so on. If not force a labor test.

There are a few other remote scenarios. But in a nutshell, I think 1 is no go, 2 very difficult, if not impossible, 3 is difficult but possible, will be challenged in court, 4 and 5 pretty likely with 5 kinds stretching it.

The other scenario could be based on wage levels, they can determine whether to recertify.

All of these are speculations, but With this admin anything goes. We can only hope US will remain fair and not do things retroactively.

---

I think its the immigrant intent that's the question here. It is clear from the statute that the Congress clearly had an intent to keep H1Bs post 6 years until their LPR is approved (Remember: H1B is a dual intent visa). Period! Courts take that seriously if retroactive harm is made. Also, needless to say the class action lawsuits by both employee and employer groups that will follow (remember H4 EAD revocation which was once thought to be lame duck for revocation is still facing so much legal roadblocks after almost 4 years). Also, if it was that simple with this administration it would have already happened!!

Last but not the least, as an eternal optimist I would also point out that there is an election in about 120 days and who knows we might be having totally different conversations after that!

Additional read: http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2018/01/n...lf-deport.html

I found this legal analysis of sections 104(C) and 106(a) of INA that came into effect through the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21). I talks about congressional intent and prior legal precedence on causing retroactive harm. Although this time around the administration may take the DOL route instead of the active DHS path it may have tried in 2017/2018 the intent is just the same. Somehow get rid of millions of legal immigrants waiting in line to adjust which is the case in point here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eaglenow

1. There is specific statute about long pending adjustment applications, which explicitly specifies that once 485 stays pending beyond 180 days, the certification will continue to be valid for same or similar jobs. So they cannot revoke certifications for pending 485.

2. For others, it is certainly gray area, but as mentioned by the lawyer above, it can be challenged as the previous regulation stipulates that labor cert is valid for 180 days for filing 140 and expires after that IF 140 is not filed by that time. But there is no regulation that states that labor will expire after filing 140 within the 180 day window. This is due to how the statute is interpreted through current regulations. But one caveat is the “at the time of filing and admission” in statute. This is reason for 140 time window from labor. If they change this to 485 filing, it would get murky.

But doing so now is basically reversing previous regulation. They have to consider the impact of this and evaluate the same similar to reasoning of DACA. This is basically reversing of rules with retroactive effect. This can be done but will be challenged in court.

3. What they can do is enable this for future filings and labor. Again it may be challenged but the impact is not retroactive, which may or may not be turned down by courts.

4. What they can do is rework wage levels to 3 instead of 4, this will in turn raise the average wage.

5. Another provision they could implement is rise in wage level commensurate with experience. So if filed in level 1 for first time, the next extension could force level 2 and so on. If not force a labor test.

There are a few other remote scenarios. But in a nutshell, I think 1 is no go, 2 very difficult, if not impossible, 3 is difficult but possible, will be challenged in court, 4 and 5 pretty likely with 5 kinds stretching it.

The other scenario could be based on wage levels, they can determine whether to recertify.

All of these are speculations, but With this admin anything goes. We can only hope US will remain fair and not do things retroactively.

---

"For others, it is certainly gray area, but as mentioned by the lawyer above, it can be challenged as the previous regulation stipulates that labor cert is valid for 180 days for filing 140 and expires after that IF 140 is not filed by that time. But there is no regulation that states that labor will expire after filing 140 within the 180 day window. This is due to how the statute is interpreted through current regulations. But one caveat is the “at the time of filing and admission” in statute. This is reason for 140 time window from labor. If they change this to 485 filing, it would get murky."

I disagree with you. This is not a grey area.

104(c) clearly states that three year extensions can be granted indefinitely until the “alien’s application for adjustment of status has been processed and a decision made thereon.” For the folks who have an approved I-140, a formal I-485 has not been filed because the priority date is not yet current due to the very same INA's 7% country cap for immigrant visas. Only when the PD gets current the alien will/can legally file for adjustment. Until the AOS is filed it can't be processed and decision cannot be made as a result until all of that happen (filing, processing and approval) h1b extensions should be granted. Also, USCIS as an agency for the past 2 decades set a precedence for that so to retroactively change it will be considered capricious and arbitrary clearly. Also, it will directly strike the heart of do no universal harm doctrine for drafting regulations by courts.

Trump May Attempt To Force Long-Time H-1B Visa Holders Out Of U.S.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2020/06/25/trump-may-attempt-to-force-long-time-h-1b-visa-holders-out-of-us/#5ab925573ce5

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

Trump May Attempt To Force Long-Time H-1B Visa Holders Out Of U.S.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2020/06/25/trump-may-attempt-to-force-long-time-h-1b-visa-holders-out-of-us/#5ab925573ce5

---

Q - I shared the same article above yesterday @ 10:29 AM and we have been having a few back and forth discussion on that. Your thoughts are welcome!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenzone

Q - I shared the same article above yesterday @ 10:29 AM and we have been having a few back and forth discussion on that. Your thoughts are welcome!

---

oops! I am so behind the curve I guess!

The only thing I will add is - with this president - there are no rules and no limits. It will be foolish to discount this threat. Today's rumor could very well become tomorrows news. Don't even try to rationalize this ...he has used Covid to expand restrictions unnecessarily. If you notice the DOS suspended consulates 1 month before Trump proclamation. He immediately seized the opportunity and claimed victory and passed it off as his idea. The first proclamation was nothing but reiteration and temporary continuation of status quo as forced by COVID. But now that they have tasted blood - here comes proclamation 2. And now we are hearing this.

As much as I wish this were untrue - my suggestion is - treat this as a real possibility and plan accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

oops! I am so behind the curve I guess!

The only thing I will add is - with this president - there are no rules and no limits. It will be foolish to discount this threat. Today's rumor could very well become tomorrows news. Don't even try to rationalize this ...he has used Covid to expand restrictions unnecessarily. If you notice the DOS suspended consulates 1 month before Trump proclamation. He immediately seized the opportunity and claimed victory and passed it off as his idea. The first proclamation was nothing but reiteration and temporary continuation of status quo as forced by COVID. But now that they have tasted blood - here comes proclamation 2. And now we are hearing this.

As much as I wish this were untrue - my suggestion is - treat this as a real possibility and plan accordingly.

---

Yes. But there is legality involved here as this won't be about entry of immigrants that can be curtailed by just a proclamation. Anyways, agree that its always good to be prepared as such. Although, I don't really know what it means to be "prepared".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenzone

Yes. But there is legality involved here as this won't be about entry of immigrants that can be curtailed by just a proclamation. Anyways, agree that its always good to be prepared as such. Although, I don't really know what it means to be "prepared".

---

I guess liquidate and ready to pack. The worst part for that 350K + 350K comes when they start talking about the kids. And what is the incentive for any one coming to do masters here. 50% of the students do masters because the value of bachelors is minimal in India and as a way to get into some IT or consulting with H1, so this will have a spiraling impact on universities and stuff over a period of time. But I guess who wants to look at the long term, its a matter of what you can market and sell at this moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenzone

Yes. But there is legality involved here as this won't be about entry of immigrants that can be curtailed by just a proclamation. Anyways, agree that its always good to be prepared as such. Although, I don't really know what it means to be "prepared".

---

Imagine this - Trump just had michael flynn get off the hook after admitting twice to lying. Just follow the commentary of prosecutors all over the country. People are aghast that the whole justice system is going haywire. Speaking of immigrants, they have no power. All stars are aligned against them. What chance they may stand once Trump tries to subvert existing laws?

Sorry to be dismal. But what I mean by "be prepared" is - if i were in this situation - I would
1) Stay liquid.
2) Not buy home
3) have a child if you were postponing
etc etc ... everyone make your own determination ....

Also please don't panic. This is still just a rumor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by srimurthy

I guess liquidate and ready to pack. The worst part for that 350K + 350K comes when they start talking about the kids. And what is the incentive for any one coming to do masters here. 50% of the students do masters because the value of bachelors is minimal in India and as a way to get into some IT or consulting with H1, so this will have a spiraling impact on universities and stuff over a period of time. But I guess who wants to look at the long term, its a matter of what you can market and sell at this moment.

---

Sri - in my own family in India - my brother's son is admitted to a top US university and my counsin's son admitted to another top univ -- both for masters. They received no scholarship or assistantship and are going to pay full out of state tuition. I am shocked. I myself obtained an MBA pretty much free back in 2000s! In fact I earned and saved money while doing an MBA.

I guess this actually will have positive impact on India by retaining talent back home. But for the people who are in Limbo - this is very stressful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

Imagine this - Trump just had michael flynn get off the hook after admitting twice to lying. Just follow the commentary of prosecutors all over the country. People are aghast that the whole justice system is going haywire. Immigrants have no power. All stars are aligned against.

Sorry to be dismal. But what I mean by be prepared is - if i were in this situation - is I would
1) stay liquid.
2) Not buy home
3) have a child if you were postponing
etc etc ... everyone make your own determination ....

Also please don't panic. This is still just a rumor.

---

Its easy to say this. I would treat this as a rumor AND NOTHING MORE as of now. When panic meter goes up it crosses irrationality levels very quick. Also pardoning Flynn is very different from what we are talking about. Anyways I won't argue with you. One of the reasons why I liked this forum is because it was lot more rational (I thought) and less emotion based.