Discussion of Bills that remove the Per Country Limits - H.R.3012, H,R. 213

The way you phrased your question, your answer seems incorrect. It would depend on the job requirement. If the job requires a fresh graduate then why hire a PhD :). The question can probably be rephrased to if there are two empty positions one requiring a PhD and other requiring a fresh graduate and you can only fill one position (by granting one visa number), which one would you fill. If both of them have been vacant for the same time then in the marginal case one can probably say fill the one that is hard to fill and hence the PhD. But the reality is not that simple. Does it make sense to keep the fresh graduate waiting for 4 years and assign a visa number that becomes available after 4 years to a new PhD position. That is quite inefficient.
Categories already take care of the hierarchy and hence assign a separate queue so that categories with stricter skill criteria move faster. The question is in case of excess visas how should they be allocated to different queues taking into account their average utility (how fast do we want one category to run vs the other with the spillover visas - current answer is infinite).
There are various possible solutions (all of them would have flaws but most of them would be better than the current spillover downfall in my opinion). Below are some i could think of, there can be many more.

1. Take the average actual wages earned by people in the categories and use that as an indicator of how much employment market values a category. For EB2 to EB3 the ratio will probably be 1.5-3 at best. I know this is going to hurt a lot of egos :).

2. Take the number of years of work experience required to file in a category as an indicator. So EB2 requires minimum 5 and let us say EB3 can be filed with just 1 year. Even this liberal estimate gives a ratio of 5 (implying 16% visas to be given to EB3 instead of 0%).

3. Discard the entire notion of importance. After all the queues are already separate and account for relative importance. So how do you decide if an economy should produce 10 pounds of tea or 7 bars of soap. The answer is you don't decide, the demand governs it. So the spillover can be in proportion to the relative demands in these categories. After all if businesses need more people who are just out of college than PhDs then filling all the PhD PERMs while not supplying any fresh graduates will hurt the system more than if they were supplied in proportion to their demands.

The above approaches still do not give any weight to the amount of time a person has already been in his respective queue but just try to assign relative importance of categories on average. The anger at porting (with retaining older PD) that some people express from time to time does not seem justified (in my opinion) given the distorted distribution of spillover visas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vizcard

The underlying requirements to qualify in EB1 vs EB2 vs EB3 would suggest that there is an implicit hierarchy in importance - at least to the US government. But purely from a business sense (forget about immigration for now), if you ran your own business and had a $1000 to spend and you could hire only one person, would you hire a PhD with experience or someone straight out of college with almost no experience. The answer to that describes importance.

Regarding allocation of spillover, I dont disagree that there should be some "sharing". Im sure the split would be debatable but philosophically I agree.

---

My post was responding to your post about "importance". However, it looks like the fundamental issue you have is distribution of spillover. I already agreed with that in my previous post and specifically I said "Regarding allocation of spillover, I dont disagree that there should be some "sharing". Im sure the split would be debatable but philosophically I agree.".

I will also comment that (1) salaries are not correlated to immigration quotas. (2) Years of experience are not the only qualifier for EB2. (3) No one can make a broad statement that says a college graduate PERM applicant is more urgent that a PhD one (or vice versa) as they are both required and asked for by their respective organizations. In theory, the recruiting process adopted by companies already accounts for that i.e. if there are US applicants why take an immigrant. Also, a true demand-based system is always ideal but not practical to implement when it comes to public policy.

Lastly, I am not an EB2 apologist and I believe in fairness to all categories.

I have no intentions to be confrontational or to hijack the thread, I was just trying to present an argument and have done that in the last two posts. This will be my last one on this topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

If porting did not happen, you would actually see the whole EB2 current today

---

Not true, add up the current inventory till April-2010 and PERM numbers between May-2010 and June-2012 and you will understand why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

Immigration should not be dictated by businesses.

---

My posts were for Employment based visa categories !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

Some of us simply feel that retention of PD across the categories is an absolutely dumb rule - and if you were not a stakeholder and saw this more impartially, you could not arrive at any other conclusion.

---

For the record i am original EB2 PD 2009 applicant and did not port. My posts were indeed an attempt (unsuccessful one it seems) to be impartial. I understand the anger against retention of PD but what i was trying to highlight was that it is not the complete story. The spillover rules are equally (probably more) unfair for EB3.
My post was not meant to divide, rather to help us in EB2 see the other side. Both EB2 and EB3 need to work together more than ever for HR3012 (and other bills if it does not succeed). There are some rules in the current system that help us at the expense of others and some that help others at our expense. To look at only the latter half and blame the beneficiaries risks dividing us. I know you have nothing against porters, i am saying that given the spillover rules i have nothing against even porting with retention of PD.

Thanks for your patience. I have nothing against anyone at a personal level.

I am not bogged down by how the system is setup. Yes, it was setup 20 yrs and worked well to meet the needs of employers for a while. What exacerbated an OK system into a really bad one were two things: 1) Increase in H-1B visas during 1999-2002 without corresponding increase in green cards and 2) USCIS & DoL's tardy processing of Labor certification and I-485 resulting in thousands wasted visas.

The second item above has been mostly resolved for all said purposes. But the lingering effect of the first item simply will not go away no matter how wishful we are about it.

EB3 to porting EB2 porting is moot to me. The system is setup to satisfy employers and as long as they can show that they tried to hire a US citizen but were not able to then it is ok.

Please do not invest yourself emotionally thinking about what is ideal/correct and what is not. You simply do not control the process and it is a waste of energy.

Equally skilled immigrants should get a fair chance for a green card irrespective of their country of birth. That is what I am for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kd2008

I am not bogged down by how the system is setup. Yes, it was setup 20 yrs and worked well to meet the needs of employers for a while. What exacerbated an OK system into a really bad one were two things: 1) Increase in H-1B visas during 1999-2002 without corresponding increase in green cards and 2) USCIS & DoL's tardy processing of Labor certification and I-485 resulting in thousands wasted visas.

The second item above has been mostly resolved for all said purposes. But the lingering effect of the first item simply will not go away no matter how wishful we are about it.

EB3 to porting EB2 porting is moot to me. The system is setup to satisfy employers and as long as they can show that they tried to hire a US citizen but were not able to then it is ok.

Please do not invest yourself emotionally thinking about what is ideal/correct and what is not. You simply do not control the process and it is a waste of energy.

Equally skilled immigrants should get a fair chance for a green card irrespective of their country of birth. That is what I am for.

---

It's not just the increase in H1B visas from 99-02. L1s have no limits or wage minimums and are increasingly being used by companies to transfer employees to the US. Those also lead to GC applications. And you don't have to be in the US to do a GC application so that adds to the demand as well. The quotas need to be increased and the system needs to be reformed to attract the best and brightest instead of those tired engineers willing to wait for decades for a GC.

You all will enjoy this update from our friend Grassley:

Quote:

---

Our federal immigration system is badly broken. This broken system has produced dysfunctional outcomes. It has created an unsustainable situation where thousands of people cross our southern border illegally each day while, at the same time, we continue to see shortages in much needed occupations such as doctors, scientists, engineers, and agricultural workers. And, on the flip side, the fact that we do not have good, strong, workable federal immigration laws is now causing states to pass inconsistent laws that create havoc for employers and law enforcement.

That is why I believe we must act as soon as possible to repair our broken immigration system.

The American people have been clear. Americans overwhelmingly oppose illegal immigration and support legal immigration. They know that, throughout our history, immigrants have contributed to making this country more vibrant and economically dynamic. Once it is clear that in 20 years our nation will not again confront the specter of another 11 million people coming here illegally, Americans will embrace more welcoming immigration policies. After many meetings with constituents, stakeholders, and other members of Congress, I truly believe that the fundamentals for immigration reform exist if we coalesce around seven key principles that the American people overwhelmingly support.


Illegal immigration is wrong, and a primary goal of immigration reform must be to dramatically curtail future illegal immigration.
Operational control of our borders--through significant additional increases in infrastructure, technology, and border personnel--must be achieved.
A biometric-based employer verification system—with tough enforcement and auditing using a fraud-proof social security card—is necessary to significantly diminish the job magnet that attracts illegal aliens to the United States and to provide certainty and simplicity for employers.
All illegal immigrants present in the United States on the date of enactment of reform legislation must quickly register their presence with the United States Government—and submit to a rigorous 8-year process of earning legal status by submitting to background check, paying taxes, learning English and Civics, and submitting to penalties for their conduct—or face imminent deportation.
Family reunification is a cornerstone value of our immigration system. By dramatically reducing illegal immigration, we will create more room for both family immigration and employment-based immigration.
We must encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but must discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
We must create a legal immigration system that ends the current flow of low-skilled illegal immigrants into the United States and creates a more manageable and controlled flow of legal immigrants who can be absorbed by our economy at times when workers are needed.

---

that update was from schumer...

The Indian media seems more confident about HR 3012 than the US media

http://profit.ndtv.com/News/Article/...e-otherstories

AILA has this on their site today. Hopefully they will accept the compromise and move HR 3012 forward

http://ailaleadershipblog.org/2012/0...ps-and-limits/

To fellow forum members
Just keeping this thread alive till everybody returns from their July 4 holiday break

http://www.sfgate.com/business/prweb...467.php#page-2

The only reason that I posted this is because of the reference to H-1B/L-1B reforms from Senators Durbin and Grassley in the form of a Bill "later in the year".Is this the same as the negotiated settlement widely discussed last week or is this completely different? If HR 3012 is linked to this story then the timeframe for passage becomes more uncertain

It would be nice to have AILA's support for this bill. (mainly the amendments since i think they do support 3012 without amendments).
We do need to contact AILA and ask for their support on compromise. I am assuming ** has probably tried or trying on that. But if someone here knows any AILA members, lets ask them to start a dialogue with AILA on this compromise. or we as an immigrants community should draft a letter and send it to their advocacy committee and Executive committee and HR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

AILA has this on their site today. Hopefully they will accept the compromise and move HR 3012 forward

http://ailaleadershipblog.org/2012/0...ps-and-limits/

---

Date: June 28th, 2012
Citilawgroup's update confirming Grassley's latest ammendments & negotiations (hold still remains):
http://www.cilawgroup.com/news/2012/...n-card-limits/

Date: June 30th, 2012
http://imminfo.com/News/Newsletter/2...nt-hr3012.html

To fellow forum members
I saw this thread on trackitt earlier today and somebody had posted an open note
on prospects for STEM visa Bill-from IEEE USA and is as follows-

"I wanted to send everyone a quick note letting you know that we made significant progress in the past week in our efforts to get a STEM Visa bill passed this year. You wouldn't know that from watching the news, because everything that has happened has been behind the scenes, but things are actually looking good for us.

Last Monday IEEE-USA received a briefing from Rep. Lamar Smith's staff in which the Congressman laid out his plan to introduce a STEM visa bill right after the 4th of July recess (meaning the week of the 9th). Lamar Smith is Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and generally sceptical of immigration, so his support is enormous. The proposal is almost exactly what we expected it to be: 51,000 new EB visas for International STEM PhD Students and STEM students receiving a Masters in Computer Science or Engineering. This is a bit more restrictive than we expected, but not much. Some of the limits will be negotiated away during the legislative process, but even if they are not, this is a great bill.

Helping the process along, a poll was released earlier today from the Partnership for a New American Economy which shows overwhelming public support for the STEM Visa. Results here: [url]http://www.renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes...]

IEEE-USA has learned that two other important, but very quiet, things have happened in the past two weeks.

First, the Republican leadership in the House has decided to aggressively back a STEM Visa Bill. Second, very senior leaders from the House and Senate have started personally negotiating a compromise bill that both chambers of Congress and both Parties can agree to.

In other words, everything that needs to be happening for this bill to become law this year is currently happening.

As soon as the bill drops after the 4th, IEEE-USA will be doing a full-court press to get it passed before Congress breaks for the election. Despite the tremendous progress we have made in the past few days, we are still facing long-odds simply because we don't have much time left in the legislative year. But those odds are not nearly as long as they were two weeks ago.

I hope to have more detailed information to you about the STEM Visa Bill early next week.

Please pass this e-mail onto anyone who may be interested.

Thanks.

Russ

Russell T. Harrison
Senior Legislative Representative - Grassroots Affairs
IEEE-USA "

The details are murky but this might be similar to the BRAIN act that Rep.Tim Griffin has been trying to introduce since last November. How this affects HR 3012 or the current backlog is unclear but I have a feeling that 3012 provisions may be blended in as part of a more expansive legislation.

It is Sunday evening and as usual I am predicting some movement this week. There have been numerous hearings on the STEM subject and things can move very fast if the two chambers desire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

To fellow forum members
I saw this thread on trackitt earlier today and somebody had posted an open note
on prospects for STEM visa Bill-from IEEE USA and is as follows-

"I wanted to send everyone a quick note letting you know that we made significant progress in the past week in our efforts to get a STEM Visa bill passed this year. You wouldn't know that from watching the news, because everything that has happened has been behind the scenes, but things are actually looking good for us.

Last Monday IEEE-USA received a briefing from Rep. Lamar Smith's staff in which the Congressman laid out his plan to introduce a STEM visa bill right after the 4th of July recess (meaning the week of the 9th). Lamar Smith is Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and generally sceptical of immigration, so his support is enormous. The proposal is almost exactly what we expected it to be: 51,000 new EB visas for International STEM PhD Students and STEM students receiving a Masters in Computer Science or Engineering. This is a bit more restrictive than we expected, but not much. Some of the limits will be negotiated away during the legislative process, but even if they are not, this is a great bill.

Helping the process along, a poll was released earlier today from the Partnership for a New American Economy which shows overwhelming public support for the STEM Visa. Results here: [url]http://www.renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes...]

IEEE-USA has learned that two other important, but very quiet, things have happened in the past two weeks.

First, the Republican leadership in the House has decided to aggressively back a STEM Visa Bill. Second, very senior leaders from the House and Senate have started personally negotiating a compromise bill that both chambers of Congress and both Parties can agree to.

In other words, everything that needs to be happening for this bill to become law this year is currently happening.

As soon as the bill drops after the 4th, IEEE-USA will be doing a full-court press to get it passed before Congress breaks for the election. Despite the tremendous progress we have made in the past few days, we are still facing long-odds simply because we don't have much time left in the legislative year. But those odds are not nearly as long as they were two weeks ago.

I hope to have more detailed information to you about the STEM Visa Bill early next week.

Please pass this e-mail onto anyone who may be interested.

Thanks.

Russ

Russell T. Harrison
Senior Legislative Representative - Grassroots Affairs
IEEE-USA "

The details are murky but this might be similar to the BRAIN act that Rep.Tim Griffin has been trying to introduce since last November. How this affects HR 3012 or the current backlog is unclear but I have a feeling that 3012 provisions may be blended in as part of a more expansive legislation.

It is Sunday evening and as usual I am predicting some movement this week. There have been numerous hearings on the STEM subject and things can move very fast if the two chambers desire.

---

This is very interesting. It would be a god send for some people. I wonder why they are restricting to CS only.

If they say STEM it won't be CS/CE alone. I would be surprised if they eliminate majors like Physics, Math, Chemistry, Biology, etc. - There are not many people who major in these fields.

Weird that this news came out from IEEE guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mavrick

If they say STEM it won't be CS/CE alone. I would be surprised if they eliminate majors like Physics, Math, Chemistry, Biology, etc. - There are not many people who major in these fields.

Weird that this news came out from IEEE guy.

---

I agree with you. I think it would be extremely unfair to limit STEM only to CS/CE.

I am a physician and have an MD (Doctor of Medicine) in Internal Medicine and MPH (Masters in Public Health) degrees. You can count this as double Masters because MD in Internal Medicine is a 3 year training which I believe is equivalent of doing Masters.

I have a friend who has Masters in Microbiology, MD in Pediatrics and Fellowship in Pediatric Cardiology. You can count that as one Masters degree and one PhD degree since Pediatric residency training (MD) and Pediatric Cardiology fellowship training takes total 6 (3+3) years to complete. Add 2 years of Masters in Microbiology to that. That is 8 years of study.

Me and my friend both are waiting for green card since we fall under EB2I. If they include only CS/CE in STEM bill, many people like me and my friend who have degrees with other majors than CS/CE and who have spent even longer years in training compared to Masters in CS or CE will be left out for no fault of ours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonty Rhodes

I agree with you. I think it would be extremely unfair to limit STEM only to CS/CE.

---

The only DV/STEM bill out there (Cornyn bill) clearly says any STEM degree from a reputable university (it has a complex definition of acceptable universities, but they must have at least 10 years of existence, etc...) would count.

Last Paragraph in this article is very important. We are almost there. Please read complete article eventhough it is in a blog gives more and more expectation.

In the next few weeks, the Senate is expected to consider the "Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act." At a time when growing our economy and remaining competitive in the global marketplace is of utmost importance, we should be encouraging highly skilled people to remain in the United States rather than work for our competitors overseas. This legislation will be critical for the U.S. to keep and attract the best and brightest minds, which will in turn fuel growth and innovation here at home.

http://www.qualcomm.com/media/blog/2...n-us-employers

Update from ** on HR 3012 hold:http://****************.org/forum/fo...ml#post3531888

It looks like ** has announced that Sen. Grassley has officially lifted the hold on 3012.
Hope the news is correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by openaccount

Update from ** on HR 3012 hold:http://****************.org/forum/fo...ml#post3531888

---

Sen. Grassley apparently has lifted his hold. I am still looking for independent confirmation from third party source. Please post if you find it.

Not sure whether the following is partially useless or totally useless information:

I just called the senator's office and was informed by the person - "As far as I know the hold is still in place".

Whatever this means, this sure means that as of this moment, the senator's office is not OK in publicly confirming that the hold has been removed. It may be the same or different story an hour/day/week from now.

Good luck. And please don't fight phantoms on message boards.

I would caution against bothering Sen. Grassley's office. They will only confirm what is out in the media. No media has reported the hold being lifted yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kd2008

I would caution against bothering Sen. Grassley's office. They will only confirm what is out in the media. No media has reported the hold being lifted yet.

---

:D What if I am the "media"?

I've called, emailed, and visited them enough to not worry about "bothering" them. It's their job to take these calls and respond as per their plan of giving out information. As of when I called, their plan was to not let the "media" know that the hold has been removed OR, in actuality, the hold had not been removed.

If what's out in the "media" is false, a 10 second call is a pretty decent way to figure out the supposed truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manubhai

:D What if I am the "media"?

I've called, emailed, and visited them enough to not worry about "bothering" them. It's their job to take these calls and respond as per their plan of giving out information. As of when I called, their plan was to not let the "media" know that the hold has been removed OR, in actuality, the hold had not been removed.

If what's out in the "media" is false, a 10 second call is a pretty decent way to figure out the supposed truth.

---

Manu, sorry, it wasn't directed at you in particular. But I wanted others on the forum to be conservative in judgement (ehm...pun intended) and not bother the office. I hope the news is true and it trickles down the channels eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kd2008

Sen. Grassley apparently has lifted his hold. I am still looking for independent confirmation from third party source. Please post if you find it.

---

kd,
here it is

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/...eID_1502=41746