Wondering why do you think that starting point would be the same?Quote:
Originally Posted by kd2008
Wondering why do you think that starting point would be the same?Quote:
Originally Posted by kd2008
Kd is right. It is unlikely the bill will get passed before Oct/Nov given summer recess schedules for the Senate and House. The House in particular is barely working for 2-3 weeks between July-end to Sep-end.
Suninphx,
Because the bill probably won't be passed in this FY, the starting point will be the same.
Effective date of FY2012 infers that this year would be counted as first year for 15% cap limit. I am just guessing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanmani
I guess the starting point would be Jan 2009 IC and WW and move forward assuming the bill becomes law before oct'12
Ok- I thought KD was responding to possible opening date if HR3012 is a law by that time. May be I understood it differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
I tend to agree. CO has no reason to be defensive if its a law by that time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanmani
PS: I understand its long way to go but then again we got some positive news after a while :).
Sun, DoS has already distributed the EB and Family visa numbers asper existing set of rules . How could they alter the issued numbers? 140K additional GCs ? Which may require a new bill , instead they will simply change 2 to 3 .
What I meant is they can not take back visas already given (ofcourse) but wondering if this year will be counted as first year as more than 15% visas have already been given. Its just optimistic guess work, nothing more :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanmani
It will most likely be a FY13 effective date.
To Vishnu
Thank you for the earlier post detailing the FAQs on the Grasley Amendment. My feeling is that the column underplays the audit component of the amendment for H-1B dependent employers.I am not sure if this link has been provided here before but I would direct attention to Item no 5 where it says that the audits are mandatory for all H-1B dependent employers
http://www.cilawgroup.com/news/2012/...n-card-limits/
Sen.Grassley also mentions this in his statement in paragraph 4
"There is also agreement to include a provision allowing the Federal Government to do annual compliance audits of employers who bring in foreign workers through the H-1B visa program."
As everybody else in this forum has already mentioned these are good faith amendments and a step to ensure that the H-1B program works as intended.To be pointed out also is that Sen.Grassley was part of the senate judiciary committee in 1990 that originated the H-1B visa and understands the original intent of the visa and the subsequent misuse/abuse albeit by a small fraction.The challenge always is ensuring that the offenders are trapped without placing undue burden on employers who are clean and playing by the rules. Of course the final language may be diluted after being processed through the legislative mill.
I agree that it is much easier to preserve the language and change the date of enactment to avoid confusion. I am just surprised at the relatively sombre tone of posts on this forum (except for one post in the middle of the night!!). I am only assuming that everybody has seen so many promises come and go that they probably will wait till it shows up on the White House website that the Bill has been signed by President Obama
Interestingly no mention of this development yet on the AILA website
If you look at the priority date thread, you will see most members of this forum have PDs of 2007 to 2009 and have their EADs by now. Those with 2010 and onward haven't realized the wait ahead of them. Hence the lukewarm response.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
We should never take seriously whatever written on any Attorney sites regarding H.R.3012 almost half of the Attorneys and a big part of AILA, including Ron Gotcher is against H.R.3012 (with Guncle's amendment) why because they miss the $$$ to sue Government agencies like DOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
And as of now the effective date is Fiscal year 2012, unless it is changed in the final form. Bothering about the dates now is too early!;) "Anything is possible in the Land of Make-Belief"
Do you know when it might come on to senate floor for voting.
To Kd
I understand that mindset with EB2 professionals but I was hoping that EB3 would be rejoicing more
I guess cautious optimism is being practiced by EB3 - I/C to be more specific - folks.
No one knows for sure. But they essentially have 3 weeks before Summer recess and then 3 weeks in Sept if they want to get it in before Oct. Ofcourse, after they approve it (assumption here), it will go back to the House for a re-vote and who knows how long it will sit there or if it gets re-amended. After that it has to be signed in by the President and that's another issue by itself (especially with the Presidential elections). I'm hoping it will reach total resolution one way or another by Dec 2012.Quote:
Originally Posted by redsox2009
To fellow forum members
This from the National Journal today
http://influencealley.nationaljourna...id=site_search
I liked the Comment on the link you provided. Probably from an Attorney. But looks an unbiased one in the current situation. Here it is......
Those from India who are thanking Sen. Grassley have their facts wrong. Sen. Grassley is not the hero of this bill as the article seems to imply.
The initial bill, the one that got rid of the per country cap, was not Sen. Grassley's bill. It was Rep. Jason Chaffetz's bill. You should thank Rep. Chaffetz.
Sen. Grassley was the one who held up the bill as it originally was. In order to get Sen. Grassley to take the hold off the bill the groups supporting this bill made a deal with Sen. Grassley to add some conditions to the bill to buy his support for the bill. The additions to the bill are 1) an increase in the power of the DOL to audit LCA's and 2) additional audits for company's that have more than 100 employees and have more than 15% of their employees on H-1B visas.
While it sounds wonderful for the DOL to catch those who are filing fraudulent LCA's, the reality of it is that it will be the individual foreign national employees who pay the price for these additions, not the employers. Additional audits will result in lots of innocent potential H-1B employees (many of them Indian) not being able to get the H-1B visas because the H-1B visa quota ran out before their LCA was approved. It will also mean that LCAs will need to be applied for much earlier to account for the increased possibility of an audit and delay, which will mean that initial H-1B petitions under the cap will be for less than 3 years.
Als, before you cheer giving the DOL more power to audit companies, you should realize that the penalty for a company that is found to have committed fraud is disbarment from being able to sponsor H-1B's. Which means that when fraud is found it is not the company that is punished. The company will be able to continue on without its H-1B employees. It is the company's H-1B employees, who now find themselves working for a company that will have to eventually fire them because they can't renew their H-1B's.
I am not saying that this is a bad bill. It does correct a fundamental inequity in the immigration laws. But Sen. Grassley certainly does not deserve the credit for it or the thanks of the Indian community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
But H1 B controls are a must to get rid of the fraud that may happen. Even the employers may get affected if caught as they will loose their revenue from H1B. I am sure many EVC companies have their main revenue from H1B only
Quote:
Originally Posted by feedmyback
Yes, as could many Indian IT companies. But the statute is problematic because the DoL is quite frankly very stupid and they often make mistakes. Legitimate people will get caught in this as well and better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail. At least that's my personal jurisprudential philosophy (or Blackstone's really).Quote:
Originally Posted by bvsamrat
To immitime
Your point is taken about the biased views of immigration attorneys regarding the Grassley amendment but Greg Siskind sounds reasonable in his blog today
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/201...d-on-3012.html
To abcx13
Champagne on hold for now! As I mentioned before-the senate always gets 3 day weekends! I think now that the cloture was invented so that it can be filed and senators can skip town till it matures
feedmyback,
Well covered. Presumption that small employers are fraudsters is self serving for many on this forum and elsewhere.
but very small employers, <100 employees are anyway not covered by the amendment
To Vishnu
The smaller employers are already covered under the H-1B dependent employers definition which is pre-existing.
http://www.cilawgroup.com/news/2009/...ent-employers/
The larger employers are also included now. Irrespective of the size of the organization,the amendment gives sweeping powers to the DOL to trigger audits at zero notice of any H-1B employer without the audit being complaint-driven which is the case now.The aim is to nip the H-1B process at the LCA level itself without letting the USCIS come in and lengthy judicial reviews being conducted.
Please review my post yesterday where I had pasted a link from Greg Siskind's blog about what the effects of the potential delay might be
In any case-at this point a more effective deterrent than Senator Grassley and his amendment is the ridiculous dollar-INR exchange rate (INR 55.2 yesterday). Wage costs are the highest items on the expenditure side of large consulting firms and their business model depends on earning in dollars and spending in rupees.Onshoring may not be very attractive at this time. Also the smaller US based outfits depend on recruiting via H-1B transfers from these larger companies and a reduction in new arrivals may decrease the available pool of candidates
As always corrections and comments welcome
Ha! ya economics triumphs everything else. Tough times indeed for the IT services companies, though wage inflation in India is slightly cooling, so that would be a benefit.
Just read this on immigration-law.com:
07/14/2012: Unconfirmed Rumor of Additional Holds on H.R. 3012 Other Than Sen. Grassley's
There is a rumor of other holds on H.R. 3012 by some Senators other than Sen. Grassley's. This rumor has yet to be confirmed through the search of Senate records. If this information is confirmed, these holds will have to be lifted first before H.R. 3012 can be taken up on the Senate floor as otherwise these Senators can filibuster against the bill.
From **'s Admin: so may be everything resolved already ?
We have known about the other two holds since March. These holds were put on the bill to prevent adding Irish E-3 to HR3012.
As part of the deal with the two sides, there is no attempt to add Irish E-3 to HR3012. As part of the agreement, Irish E-3 will be a standalone bill and it will get Up/Down vote i.e. 50 vote threshold and not the usual 60 vote threshold in the Senate. As part of the deal, Irish E-3 bill will not allow undocumented to be eligible to for E-3.And 1/3rd E-3 visas will require minimum Bachelor’s degree, 1/3rd visas will require high school and 1/3rd visas will not require any minimum qualification.
Again, since these holds were put in place to prevent adding Irish E-3 into HR3012. And we expect to see these holds release in a reasonable manner.
The agreement between Sen. Schumer and Sen. Grassley for the amendment to HR3012 was a significant step. This was followed by Senator Grassley releasing the hold on HR3012. Our voices are being heard and we are getting positive feedback from Senate offices. We request all members to focus on Action Items and not worry about anything else.
To girish 989
The other 2 holds were placed by Senators David Vitter and Senator Jeff Sessions but as their names were not mentioned in any active discussions-I thought they had released their hold already.But according to the message you provided-it probably does not matter anymore
No other hold was recorded in Senate records other than Sen.Grassley's hold, so take the rumour of attonrey's dirty mind as rumour...! Relax! and enjoy the weekend!Quote:
Originally Posted by girish989
gs1968,
I know you have very good knowledge about the legislative process. Looks like Senator can place a secret hold on the bill. Can this secret hold record any where? How do you know that these Senators were placed a hold on this bill?
What do you think is going happen with this bill?
I am so disappointed after I saw this news...If it’s not clear the senate in next 2 to 3 weeks, I think it's better to forget about this bill and move on and plan our life’s accordingly…These days are so stressful and can’t sleep with all these news.
To SaibabaAug2010
There was an article on Irish Central back in February where the names of these 2 senators were mentioned as being opposed to the Irish E-3 Bill which at the time was attached to HR 3012 provisions by Sen.Schumer.Please see the last paragraph of this article
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Pre...139349003.html
As far as holds go-the process is generally informal and off the record Senators can tag team and hold as noted in the last paragraph of this link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_hold
My feeling is that if either Senator Schumer or Brown's Bill moved past Senator Grassley then they would have openly opposed. I don't think their objection matters as the HR 3012 provisions appear to have been detached from the Irish provisions
As far as the HR 3012 Bill is concerned, we should all share immitime's optimism and relax and let the legislative process work itself out
This link says that there are no more secret holds...
http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/pre...ses-the-senate
Looks like our old uncle does not like secret holds :-)
If the holds were true, I think it should be in the Congressional Record, within two legislative days of an objection being made by any senator. I believe these are Attorney tactics to just create confusion between us... I still believe God with us.
gs1968,
Thank you. As always I really enjoy reading your posts, and you are up to the point.
Have a great rest of the weekend.
To SaiBabaAug2010
Thanks for the link.I had forgotten about that amendment to the Senate Rules.I remember that it was part of Sen. Reid and the Democrats' grand attempt to undertake a major revision of Senate Rules (modification of filibuster etc.) and this is all they could achieve
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congr...eform-20101222
However I think I would trust ** on this one and believe that these holds were for a different purpose and would not affect freestanding HR 3012.
I know it is very complicated process, and not easy to predict the progress of this bill especially in the election year. Do you have any pesimistic and optimistic projection of this bill becoming law based on movement of any similar bills in the past?
To sreddy
I am very optimistic that the Bill will pass this year. The standalone provisions of HR 3012 have no real opposition in either chamber and if not for Senator Grassley's hold for leverage on other reforms-this would have passed by now.
The advantage of this Bill as opposed to the Irish E-3 is that there is no explicit beneficiary country although India and China stand to gain by this at least in the short term. Future filing patterns which are bound to change with the Bill are hard to predict and even the imposition of a cut-off date for ROW is a wake-up call for other country nationals to not waste time and get on track with their GC process.
There is no visible opposition to Senator Grassley's amendment in the Senate.I am confident that the 3012 provisions are also popular among Senators as these provisions have been included in numerous Bills. Apart from the trio of Schumer,Grassley and Durbin,the other Senators have never been vociferous about the program and if these amendments are presented as improvements to the H-1B program then they will surely agree
If the Bill passes the Senate then it will head back to the House where again the major players are going to be in the Judiciary Committee especially Reps.Lamar Smith and Zoe Lofgren. I read somewhere in the early stages of the Bill that this was actually Rep Lofgren's idea (she had unsuccessfully introduced this Bill in 2008) and Rep Chaffetz who is a second term Congressman was roped in as a front man to secure Republican support.
The amended Bill should have no problems in the House Judiciary committee.In fact the amendments are very similar to reforms proposed by Rep Smith back in 2004
http://lamarsmith.house.gov/News/Doc...umentID=196580
I am confused somewhat because the language was included as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill signed by President Bush in 2004. The Bill is H.R 4818 and it is in Section J Title 4
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...lxcJ:e1755622:
I am not able to find evidence that this language was repealed in a future Congress. Even if Rep.Smith's language was not severe,in principle,he should not have objection to a similar amendment by Sen.Grassley.If the House JC OKs it then the House should concur and it will become law. I am not sure that the lack of legislative time will impact this Bill at all
A few wild cards
1.AILA-Their silence on this matter is concerning. Either they have resigned to acceptance or are trying to still influence the Bill's progress. The only connection I can think of is Rep.Lofgren who as a former immigration lawyer is probably affiliated with the AILA
2.Irish E-3.-If Sen.Schumer's concessions were to obtain passage of the Irish E-3 Bill,then the Senate Democratic Majority will wait for this to be passed and approved by the House before moving amended 3012
Relax and enjoy the summer!
Thanks for the detailed explaination. Hope bill will become law this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
Per The OH Law firm:
http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
07/14/2012: Unconfirmed Rumor of Additional Holds on H.R. 3012 Other Than Sen. Grassley's
There is a rumor of other holds on H.R. 3012 by some Senators other than Sen. Grassley's. If this information is confirmed, these holds will have to be lifted first before H.R. 3012 can be taken up on the Senate floor as otherwise these Senators can filibuster against the bill.
@mniwas:
Anything posted on OH Law needs to be taken with grain of salt. For what I care, they may be actively reading this thread and then posting the updates.. :)