Q,
That's what I thought and it might get better by the time it passes (if it does). I thought just removing the dependants from the numerical cap should help EB2I more than removing country cap. Correct me if I am wrong on this one.
There is a major hearing in the Judiciary Committee today. It's a long list.
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hear...f47a4bf3bfabdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
The stream of this hearing is here.Quote:
Originally Posted by geterdone
GO8 hits back at grassley.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nati...7DP/story.html
Quote:
WASHINGTON — Two senators who helped write bipartisan immigration legislation said Sunday that the Boston Marathon bombings should expedite an overhaul of the system rather than stall it.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said on CNN’s “State of the Union’’ that the bombings that left three dead ‘‘should urge us to act quicker, not slower when it comes to getting the 11 million identified,’’ referring to the estimated number of immigrants living in the country illegally.
Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, who also appeared on the CNN program, said keeping the status quo is not a very good argument, given what happened in Boston.
Quote:
Schumer said critics are using the bombings to oppose a proposal they disliked from the start. He said that if they have suggestions to make the proposal better, they should speak up.
A very cynical article but unfortunately this is most likely the route the Immigration Bill is going to take
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/345883
If speaker decides to go "Regular Order" CIR is in for a rough ride, unless something changes his mind or Goodlatte's.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
geterdone, if the bill had only 2 things in it
A) dependents become exempt from cap
B) removal of country cap
And I were given a choice of having only 1 of those actually becoming a law - here are some calculations below that will tell you what is better.
A) Dependents exempt scenario:
It practically doubles EB limit. That makes 140K extra visa equivalent available to EB2IC. Of which 40K goes to EB3. So EB2IC gets 100K equivalent more visas. i.e 50K regular and 50K cap exempt.
This helps everybody more than option B.
B) removal of country cap
This gives EB2IC all 40K for EB2 category in the short term.
This helps EB2IC & EB3IC. But hurts EBROW
conclusion: The winner is A) !!!! So agree w you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geterdone
Good article. This does seem a problem. I do not know if they would change it for immigration.Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/pat-leahy-boston-marathon-bombings-immigration-90418.html
getting funny:
Quote:
During a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a clearly agitated Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) abruptly yelled at Sen. Chuck Schumer as the New York Democrat called on critics to stop using last week’s bombings as a chance to slow down an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws.
“I never said that!” Grassley shouted, turning toward Schumer. “I never said that!”
“I don’t mean you, Mr. Grassley,” Schumer told the Iowa senator.
[QUOTE=gcq;34835]
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/pat-leahy-boston-marathon-bombings-immigration-90418.html
getting funny:
[LEFT][COLOR=#000000]
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2RDcr0oHL
Hilarious. Though I don't know why Rand Paul is playing hot and cold.
Loved the firework between Schumer and Grassley.
Schumer went rather strongly against grassley and witnesses. Haven't seen him that way anytime in recent memory.
Why did Grassley say he never said that ?
What was he ashamed of ?.
Schumer subtly called Grassley a liar when he said, "I didn't mean you Grassley, there are people who said that in the press".
Did anyone get to watch the Judiciary Committee hearings? Immigrant visa reform went almost unmentioned. Sen Sessions brought it up in the context of increasing immigrtion by 20M over 10 years (he factored in legalizations plus increased quotas). Sen. Schumer got the represenative from the Center for Immigration /Studies to accept that PhDs should get green cards. Didn't hear much more.
I listened to part of it. Actually, there was a lot of talk about H1Bs. They had Brad Smith from MSFT, Ron Hira and some other guys. I think everyone agreed about GCs. Indian IT companies (rightly) got a lot of flak for gaming the system - including from an ex-Patni guy. I'm glad to see distinctions being made in the debate b/w Google and MSFT and outsourcers like Accenture, Infy, etc. even if it is not ultimately reflected in the actual bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by justvisiting
That is the anti-immigrant group plot. The idea of attacking consulting companies originated from numbers usa/Fair. They feed Grassley with this kind of info. I was active a while on some forums where antis where present. They figured out they could not go against big names like Microsoft etc. So they picked these consulting companies which were smaller in size, didn't have much lobbying power. The same way lions following a herd of cattle will pick on their weakest members, injured ones and infants.Quote:
Originally Posted by abcx13
Net result, immigrants like abcx13 are a big supporter of their hidden agenda. That was the ultimate win for these anti-immigrant groups. Divide and conquer. They did it !
Great question. ... if anyone has any highlights to share, that's be great. From what I've seen Janet N really kicked butt in support of the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by justvisiting
I listened part of it. One of the guys who impressed me with his arguments was Grover Norquist. Grassley said he was surprised that Norquist supports immigration. Norquist explained why it made sense to have more immigrants coming into this country. As to the "impact" on social security and other welfare systems, he said there would be more money coming into the system. Flaws with social security and other systems have nothing to do with immigration. They have to reformed separately anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
His support is crucial as he is the God for many GOP ers.
I watched Panel II live.Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
That was the one that included:
Brad Smith
General Counsel and Executive Vice President
Legal and Corporate Affairs
Microsoft
Seattle, WA
Professor Ron Hira
Associate Professor of Public Policy
Rochester Institute of Technology
Rochester, NY
Neeraj Gupta
Chief Executive Officer
Systems In Motion
Newark, CA
I won't dwell on Hira and Gupta because I'm sure that will be discussed ad nauseum by others.
I was quite impressed with what Brad Smith had to say. He is an experienced and very eloquent speaker in these matters.
From memory, these are the points he put across.
a) Very pleased that the number of EB GCs were being increased.
b) Microsoft wants to hire US Workers, but also needs the mechanism to hire the "best and brightest" from around the World.
c) There is a gap in the number of people graduating from US Universities and the number of jobs available.
d) The US education system is not currently capable of producing the talent they need in sufficient numbers. He cited a figure of 48k High Schools, of which only 2.5k had qualified to teach advanced CS. He was extremely passionate about this.
e) Microsoft was pleased to see provisions in the Bill for a STEM Education Fund, but didn't think it went far enough. He suggested doubling the H1B fees and channeling all the extra income to the STEM Education Fund. I believe Microsoft have suggested something similar before.
f) He also talked about the "Multiplier Effect" for Microsoft hiring in the Seattle area. I cant remember the exact number but something around 3-4 other jobs were created in the area for every person hired by Microsoft.
As an interesting side note, he said it was Microsoft policy to initiate the GC process in the first month the employee joined them.
As I said, from memory, so don't hold me to it.
Theres a major difference consulting companies and body shops (outplacement). A lot of body shops fraudulently portray themselves as consulting companies along with false documentation which state that the employee will get paid a salary regardless of whether or not he is staffed - just so that they can apply for a H1. I know 1 person who was in that model but subsequently went to a legit company ... and Im sure everyone on this forum personally knows or knows of cases like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
I'm not judging the immigrant because he/she just wants to work. However, the practices by the companies (who are the target of the conversations) are horrible and unfair.
Now that the judicial hearings are over, what comes next ? Does the judicial cmte vote on it and if so when does that happen ?
Consulting companies, staffing companies or the so called fulltime companies, all of them are businesses operating on different business models. All of them are legitimate. If staffing was not legitimate, no american company could do that. Regarding staffing companies advertising as consulting companies, I haven't seen that. I worked for a consulting/staffing company for years. Now I am full time. My old company advertised themselves as staffing & consulting company. They had both business. When applying for H1B etc, they used to say staff augmentation is one of their business. There is nothing wrong with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
As to companies mistreating employees, that is a different matter. It has nothing to do with the business model.
As for consulting vs staffing, I don't see much of a difference. Both are staff augmentation model and contracts. Both can be terminated at any point. That is a flexibility provided by these models to companies.
Actually, it was fairly balanced I thought - all the guys decrying the outsourcers were in full support of more visas for companies like Google and MSFT. Ultimately they just wanted higher skilled people (the cream if you will) than the bodyshop guys and I don't see what is wrong with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
The part about higher fees is crucial. I think all of the big companies (at least in tech) that hire the cream from Stanford, MIT, etc. would be willing to pay higher fees for their H1B and GC employees because there is such a paucity of top talent. The offshorers, on the other hand, are always up in arms about it. That in and of itself tells you how much value each employee adds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
On the side note, based on a friend's experience who worked there, that is true. He said HR ran after him to apply for a GC even though he was too lazy to go through the process and wanted to go back to India. I believe the same is true of Google applying for GCs.
This is true of consulting companies too. My company sent me the GC packet 6 months after my joining them without even me asking. I didn't recognize the importance of that forms then, just trashed it. It took a while to recognize the importance of GC a few years later and then applied for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by abcx13
It is not true that consulting companies don't file GC. It is just the opposite. Many fulltime companies have rules that they can start GC processing only after 1 year of joining. Microsoft is an exception.
We all know some acquaintances who are stuck with some desi companies for different reasons. There must be more from other parts of the world. If there is a loophole, it will be found and used. Let's not get into this and rather use our time to find/clarify/analyze what is there on the bill.
One strategy that is unfolding among antis is to delay and kill.The House Repubs working on another bill might want to move the resolution to a joint committee, and then determine its fate there.
I dont disgree that the models are legitimate and that they afford companies flexibility. The issue is not about the business model, its about the ability to apply for a H1B under those models. The USCIS defines what is considered "legal" for the purposes of H1B. It is legal if -Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
1. the petitioner controls the day to day activities of the h1b employee (not true in a staffing model)
2. the petitioners pays wages and benefits irrespective of staffing at a client (not true in a staffing model)
So if a staffing company petitions for a h1b employee, saying that they in fact have control over the activities of the employee and pay them regardless of whether or not they are staffed at a client location, that is fraud.
Also, I don't know how you can say there isn't much of a difference between a staffing company and a consulting company. Are you saying that an Adecco-like company is simlar to a McKinsey or Deloitte-like company? That is just stupid.
Guess where you went wrong. USCIS itself is legally wrong in issuing the Jan-08 memo which you are referring to. That memo is illegal as it goes against the existing laws of the country. There is no separate definition of "employer-employee" for USCIS. Whatever that definition is, it has to come from the common law. If that employer-employee definition was correct not a single American company should be able to operate that model. Bottom line USICS memo is illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
Why is still USCIS able to use that memo against consulting companies.
1. These companies don't have the guts and file a lawsuit. They filed one, but didn't follow it up.
2. Democrats ( pro-union) in power (read Obama, Durbin). These pro-union democrats with anti-immigrant Grassley and co played behind the scenes.
Regarding consulting companies vs staffing companies, tell me what difference these companies have.
Companies like Deloitte and Bearing Point send their consultants to client place. The do the work, charge the client, company gets a cut, employee gets a cut.
Staffing companies -- ditto
Only difference is pay rate. Top consulting companies charge and pay exorbitant rates whereas staffing companies don't. Staffing companies are low end consulting companies.
One other category I can think of is companies like TCS, Infosys that grabs project and get their employees do it at their location or client location. How are they any different ?
Against the argument that "entire staffing/consulting companies should be eliminated because of some bad players", it is like saying marriage should be banned because some spouses ill-treat their counter parts.