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

[helpful_leo]

Irrespective of whether majority of Indians are doctors/IT guys/scientist or whether ROW countries are all geniuses, it doesn't matter here in this bill's context. If there is a scientist from India and another scientist from Poland, if they are equally qualified, they both will qualify for EBX category visa. When there are 2 candidates with identical qualification with the same GC categorization, who should be given priority ? The person who came first irrespective of where they were born. EB immigration doesn't discriminate between professions. So all their arguments are baseless. In EB immigration there are only 5 queues, EB1 through EB5. Professions/occupation does not matter, country of birth should not matter. That is the reason for this bill.

As for the argument that there are lot of Indians and Chinese in EB category, that is the exact reason for this bill. Candidates from China and India should not get discouraged and return to their home countries. This will obviously lead to brain drain and loss of competitiveness for US.

You are right.

However, the arguments referred to can gain some traction even among moderate senators had this bill changed the actual GC distribution from, say, 60% IT/ engineers /finance versus 40% MD/PhD/nursing to 90% IT/ engineers /finance versus 10% MD/PhD/nursing, as the anti-FIFO argument goes.

They argue that by making the process FIFO, you will admit to permanent residency a disproportionately large number of IT people at the cost of MD/PhDs etc (basing on the perecption that most IC folk are IT).

Except, the argument is factually incorrect. Among the population of international MDs+nurses+PhDs, the IC contingent, I can safely bet, exceeds 50%.

[gcq]

Need not worry. There is lot of background activity happening in support of this bill which me, you or ROW ers can't see. This activity will take care of all these. At the end of the day, it is the number of votes that matter. We will have that.

[Jonty Rhodes]

I only worry about the Dr/nurse/PhD argument because it sounds plausible on the surfcae to most people (even FIFO-ers), may be because there are so many Indians in IT. And because there really isn't any real argument against HR3012, anti-FIFOers can run with this.

I too hope ** know what they are doing. From appearances, they seem quite confident of their approach.

Few points. I am an Indian physician myself stuck in this EB2 mess and so I have some idea about this.

Somebody made a point about physicians and nurses being in EB3. Just to clarify, all doctors and nurses are in EB2 only. I have not seen a single doctor or a nurse so far in EB3. So that is almost out of question.

1. Rural Iowa does have a shortage of physicians and nurses. There are lots of foreign born doctors and nurses who work in rural Iowa. This is a true statement.

2. But if you count the percentage of foreign doctors by nationality in rural Iowa (actually anywhere in US), you would find that the majority of foreign born doctors are from India and the majority of foreign born nurses would be from Philippines. Foreign born doctors from other nationalities than India have significant presence in rural Iowa but they are not as many in numbers as India born doctors.

3. India born doctors would last the longest in their jobs in rural Iowa because they are stuck in EB2 category backlog and will wait longest to get their GCs. Many of them are actually on J1 Waiver and are doing a waiver job on H1B. (I personally know 5 physicians). Similarly Indian nurses, if in EB2, will also be stuck and will last longer in their jobs.

4. Physicians from other nationalities usually don't stay long in their jobs for one simple reason and that is because they get their GC in 6 months and either go to big cities or go for fellowships. (Frankly speaking, who would like to live in rural Iowa during those icy cold winters and boring summers).

5. So actually, giving faster GCs to doctors and nurses from other nationalities (non-India and China) is actually detrimental for rural Iowa because then they will leave their jobs and the sufferers will be hospitals and people from rural Iowa as they will face the shortage of doctors and nurses again, which in reality happens quite frequently.

6. I don't work in Iowa but I work in a midsize Midwest town. We had 1 Pakistani, 1 Syrian and 1 Philippino physician leave just 6 months after they got their GC within 6 months while we have 4 Indian doctors who are still waiting for their GCs including me ) Actually, our hospital perceives this factor to be very important because they don't want the physicians to leave frequently. Their patients suffer continuity of care because of this and hospital's reputation goes down pretty fast if they have a very high turnover of physicians. Result: Contracts are made for 3 years now and not 2 years or 1 year

This whole argument of ROWers that doctors, nurses and Ph.D. from other nationalities have to wait longer is actually counterproductive, if you think sensibly and logically. Making everyone wait equal time is the best solution regardless of whether there are more Indian doctors or more ROW doctors.

But then, we all know that Sen. Chuck Grassley's move is neither sensible nor logical. I feel it is more of an empty political rhetoric.

I hope some sanity prevails in senate so this bill can sail. (Boy, I am in poetic mood today ) )

[helpful_leo]

Few points. I am an Indian physician myself stuck in this EB2 mess and so I have some idea about this.

I am one too, but did a residency straight on H1B.

But then, we all know that Sen. Chuck Grassley's move is neither sensible nor logical. I feel it is more of an empty political rhetoric.
I hope some sanity prevails in senate so this bill can sail. (Boy, I am in poetic mood today ) )

Your argument is interesting. But can it be argued that HR3012 is detrimental to rural Iowa because now, along with others, Indians will also leave early? Or maybe you are saying that since it will equalize wait times for all, it will help the hospitals more.

I agree Grassley may only be prejudiced, but I think we should not give up on the slight chance that he is specifically against HR3012 only because he is misinformed. Beacuse the costs are too great if he is effective with his tantrums. ** doesn't think so, but what if they turn out wrong?

[feedmyback]

Never mind.... It is already here..... My bad!! After knowing how sharp members of this forum are.... I still took a chance

-----------------------------------------------------------

Not sure if someone posted this already!!

Lee and Chaffetz, along with Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., plan to visit soon with Grassley.

“I simply think it is a matter of education and communicating with him,” Chaffetz said. “The only way to even get one of these visas is you have to demonstrate that there is no American who has applied to fill that job.”

Lee explained the case he plans to make to Grassley.

[gcq]

Not sure how many noticed, there is a split in that EB_ROW yahoo group. At least one or two guys came to their senses. They said they don't prefer working with the likes of Steve King and Grassley, rather they would wait for extra 5 years. One of the amendments that king proposed in Judiciary committee was "elimination of EB3". Rightfully he made the decision it is better to wait additional 5 years than getting his category EB3 eliminated by these anti-immigrant lawmakers. I was surprised to see this response from that group as the entire group was going nuts over HR 3012.

Some EB2 ROW folks are taking EB3 ROW folks for a ride for their personal gain. Most positive thing for ROW to do is let this bill pass and then work on other broader bills like recapture, exemption of STEM, exemption of dependents from visa numbers. Now they are in a suicidal mode. They don't realize that they are playing with fire by aligning with King/Grassley etc.

[Jonty Rhodes]

I am one too, but did a residency straight on H1B.



Your argument is interesting. But can it be argued that HR3012 is detrimental to rural Iowa because now, along with others, Indians will also leave early? Or maybe you are saying that since it will equalize wait times for all, it will help the hospitals more.

I agree Grassley may only be prejudiced, but I think we should not give up on the slight chance that he is specifically against HR3012 only because he is misinformed. Beacuse the costs are too great if he is effective with his tantrums. ** doesn't think so, but what if they turn out wrong?

@helpful_leo

Your argument is interesting. But can it be argued that HR3012 is detrimental to rural Iowa because now, along with others, Indians will also leave early?

That is not what I am saying.

Or maybe you are saying that since it will equalize wait times for all, it will help the hospitals more.

This is exactly what I am saying.

I agree Grassley may only be prejudiced, but I think we should not give up on the slight chance that he is specifically against HR3012 only because he is misinformed. Beacuse the costs are too great if he is effective with his tantrums. ** doesn't think so, but what if they turn out wrong?

I totally agree.

[Jonty Rhodes]

I believe this is what he was saying (it's a complex argument, so I will try to word it the best I can):

- The hospitals are actually *preferring* Indian doctors knowing their wait times. This is discrimination *against* ROW and actually by creating the norm of leaving early, the current bunch of ROWers are harming the future applicants. In a twisted way, HR 3012 will actually help them by forcing them to wait the same as Indians.

- Whether the Indian doctors will leave early after the bill's passage is not an issue. Currently, because the hospitals know that Indians can be kept for 5 years while ROWers leave in 6 months, they may not themselves care much to provide enough incentives for the doctors to stay with them longer "irrespective of the GC status*. In this incredibly flawed system, Indians suffer needlessly and ROWers get to party on the backs of the hard working Indians. How about we put an end to this unfair practice? Perhaps everyone will wait for 2 years and perhaps hospitals will find more incentives to keep them longer. Let us keep a person's green card wait time out of the equation and let the market forces and the socialistic needs of the country solve the question of how long rural Iowa can keep all of its international doctors.

I really did not mean that. What I really meant was that with HR 3012, everyone will have similar wait times (Indian and ROW doctors). But you came up with an interesting and a different observation from my argument. Good one, my friend.

[gcq]

Best thing is to stay away from country mix, professional mix etc. That will lead us to a wrong discussion path. Country of birth/profession is not relevant to HR 3012. When we try to discuss these, we will deviate from the topic. That is what we are seeing in many internet boards. How one particular country gets advantage over the other etc. HR 3012 brings all countries to level playing field. Skills and PD are the only variables that matter once HR 3012 becomes law.

[Jonty Rhodes]

Best thing is to stay away from country mix, professional mix etc. That will lead us to a wrong discussion path. Country of birth/profession is not relevant to HR 3012. When we try to discuss these, we will deviate from the topic. That is what we are seeing in many internet boards. How one particular country gets advantage over the other etc. HR 3012 brings all countries to level playing field. Skills and PD are the only variables that matter once HR 3012 becomes law.

I agree with you. I was just replying to this Rural Iowa Argument that someone posted. But I just wanted to make people aware that Indian and Chinese Physicians are also severely suffering from EB2 backlogs (they are not in EB3) and IT is not the only sector suffering. We are not as big group as IT Professionals from India and China but our number is significant to get noticed. And we all are with you supporting you in this quest for fairness.

Just like you all, the Indian and Chinese Physicians have also been hindered from growing because of this backlog.

We can not accept promotions in bigger and better hospitals. (I had to refuse 4 promotional offers in last 6 months with bigger and better salaries because I can't change an employer at this point)

Medical Fellowships (sub-specialization) are extremely hard to get in to on H1B because fellowship programs in US hospitals are funded by NIH and Medicare and prefer to take US Citizens and GC holders only.

You can get a fellowship on H1B but you have to have publications and strong recommendation letters from University Hospital Faculty Physicians.

But here is a vicious cycle. If you are an Indian physician on H1B, most likely you will end up in a rural area. --> If you are working in a rural area, mostly it will be a smaller hospital. --> You don't have a chance to do any research or publish any paper in a smaller hospital. --> You are not in contact with any University Faculty so forget about recommendation letters also. --> No research, no publications, no strong recommendation letters + longer time spent away from academic activity after graduation (MD) = No Fellowships/Very Tough to get.

Just to give you a simple example, in my program there were 23 resident doctors who were doing MD.

10 Indians, 4 Pakistanis, 2 Nepalese, 1 Nigerian, 1 Algerian, 1 Russian, 1 South Korean, 1 Philippino, 1 Syrian, 1 Iranian.

Out of those 23, except 10 Indians, everyone got their GCs in 6 months.

Out of those 10 Indian doctors, 9 came on student visa (including me) and have an additional Masters degree from a US University along with MD. Those 9 converted from F1 to H1B.

1 Indian doctor was on Research J1 and was doing research for 5 years in Cleveland Clinic.

1 Nigerian and 1 Nepalese doctor came on GC via GC lottery.

Rest of the doctors came here on visitor visas, gave their exams, did interviews and went back. When they secured residency positions, they all came back on H1B.

Now, here is an interesting fact. No medical residency program in US (except 2 programs out of more than 6000) will sponsor green cards because they know that we will finish our training after 3 years and leave so everyone does their residency on H1B only. Physician GCs are filed in 4th year of H1B only. (We all waste our first 3 years of H1B)

So all 21 people did their residency on H1B. (2 were already on GC via GC lottery).

Right now, all 9 Indian doctors are working as a primary care or hospitalists in small towns.

The ROW doctors have moved to fellowships or taken promotions after getting their GCs and none of them have published more than 1 paper and mostly have not published at all.

Algerian doctor - Echo Fellowship and Heart Failure Fellowship
Iranian doctor - Palliative and Hematology-Oncology Fellowship
South Korean Doctor - Nephrology Fellowship
Syrian Doctor - Nephrology Fellowship
Philippino Doctor - Endocrinology Fellowship
Russian Doctor - Pain Management Fellowship
Nigerian Doctor - Cardiology Fellowship
Pakistani Doctors (All 4) - Infectious Disease, Gastroenterology, Rheumatology, Pulmonary-Critical Care Fellowships
Nepalese Doctors (All 2) - Infectious Disease, Pulmonary-Critical Care Fellowships.
Indian Doctor (One with 5 year research experience) - Endocrinology Fellowship (due to EB1A GC with 35 publications as first author)

My Indian colleague has 5 publications. He applied for Gastroenterology and had no interview calls. (Reason given - We don't sponsor H1Bs)
My Pakistani colleague has 2 publications. He applied for Gastroenterology with GC in hand and had 5 interview calls. He is doing his fellowship right now.

This is just an example of my residency program. Imagine there are so many.

Sounds similar to problems other professionals from India and China face also, isn't it?

Is this ROW call fairness?

[Jonty Rhodes]

Lets get back to doing what we were doing originally on this website. Calculations, Predictions bringing clarity to GC process as Q and Pedro Gonzalez said.

Please keep your responses measured and stick to our original work.

I will start with myself not indulging further on immigration discussions.

[imdeng]

Folks - like so many others here - I no longer contribute to ** but I do take part in all the non-monetary action items. ** has asked for letters to Senators and we should do that as well. However, the letter that ** is asking to send is not well drafted (and includes a useless sentence asking Senators to use ** as a resource). I believe we can do better and draft a much nicer letter.

Unless somebody else does it by then, I will compose a letter later today and start the process by which we can send printed hard-copy letters to Senators at a nominal cost. I believe we did that once already a couple months back. I hope all of us with help the effort by sending printed letters (or at least the emails which are free of charge).

[Pundit Arjun]

Thanks imdeng. I was looking for a good template to start with.

If I remember correct, then I think someone posted a decent template in the forum earlier. I will try to locate it, if not we can use yours.

Oh Boy, you have hurt the big daddy. Am sure you will be banned from ** too. I too might be banned from ** for posting this - LOL

Folks - like so many others here - I no longer contribute to ** but I do take part in all the non-monetary action items. ** has asked for letters to Senators and we should do that as well. However, the letter that ** is asking to send is not well drafted (and includes a useless sentence asking Senators to use ** as a resource). I believe we can do better and draft a much nicer letter.

Unless somebody else does it by then, I will compose a letter later today and start the process by which we can send printed hard-copy letters to Senators at a nominal cost. I believe we did that once already a couple months back. I hope all of us with help the effort by sending printed letters (or at least the emails which are free of charge).

[helpful_leo]

Folks - like so many others here - I no longer contribute to ** but I do take part in all the non-monetary action items. ** has asked for letters to Senators and we should do that as well. However, the letter that ** is asking to send is not well drafted (and includes a useless sentence asking Senators to use ** as a resource). I believe we can do better and draft a much nicer letter.

Unless somebody else does it by then, I will compose a letter later today and start the process by which we can send printed hard-copy letters to Senators at a nominal cost. I believe we did that once already a couple months back. I hope all of us with help the effort by sending printed letters (or at least the emails which are free of charge).

A better drafted letter is always welcome. If it is significantly improved and conveys our message across better, you or any of us can ask for that to be used as **'s official letter.

I may not entirely understand the issues involved here- but I think contributing to ** at this point is in the best interests of H.R. 3012. I have this strong sense that they are playing to a plan, which includes among other things, little publicity, direct contact with legislators, involving lawyers/ DC professionals, communicating the 'technical fix' nature of the bill (which it is), etc. All this requires effort and a lot of cash. I would trust them on this, and support the effort. I would urge that you, and others here, too.

Thanks.

[immitime]

Lee and Chaffetz, along with Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., plan to visit soon with Grassley.

“I simply think it is a matter of education and communicating with him,” Chaffetz said. “The only way to even get one of these visas is you have to demonstrate that there is no American who has applied to fill that job
Lee explained the case he plans to make to Grassley.

“It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to have these antiquated quotas in place and a country-by-country basis,” Lee said. “Tell me how that does anything to help the American worker? I don’t know that it does.”

Source : http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...ssley.html.csp

Excellent points to educate Senator Grassley properly about the situation. They are hitting the nail properly. All the best to all.

[devi_pd]

Guys.. Please use ** link when sending emails to Senators. This will help us get the message across better. There is a very good chance the bill might be taken up next week in Senate. We need to do all we can to educate them about this bill.

[imdeng]

Folks - I have created a petition that will send emails (for free) as well as printed letters (for a fee) to your respective senators.

http://www.petition2congress.com/566...rants-hr-3012/

This is a variant of the **'s petition - I have taken their content and edited it and included some thoughts of my own. To me, it reads better than the ** petition. I would urge you to spend the $9 it takes to send a printed version of the letter to the Senators - it definitely has more impact than just an email.

The link allows you to edit the petition before sending if you so wish. If you are making changes, then please share them on this forum so that I can collate the useful changes and edit the original petition with them.

[manubhai]

Folks - I have created a petition that will send emails (for free) as well as printed letters (for a fee) to your respective senators.

http://www.petition2congress.com/566...rants-hr-3012/

This is a variant of the **'s petition - I have taken their content and edited it and included some thoughts of my own. To me, it reads better than the ** petition. I would urge you to spend the $9 it takes to send a printed version of the letter to the Senators - it definitely has more impact than just an email.

The link allows you to edit the petition before sending if you so wish. If you are making changes, then please share them on this forum so that I can collate the useful changes and edit the original petition with them.

imdeng - Any chance of you being able to modify it still?? I would like to add/change something if you are ok with it... and not create a new one.

[imdeng]

Please share your changes - I can edit the petition any time.

imdeng - Any chance of you being able to modify it still?? I would like to add/change something if you are ok with it... and not create a new one.

[Pedro Gonzales]

Please share your changes - I can edit the petition any time.

I sent out the ** letter already. I'll be happy to send this one out too (printed, this time). Let us know when you've made manubhai's changes.

Q, I have moved gnhgnh's posts and the responses to them to 'junk', as his posts were still generating responses.

[suninphx]

Guys.. Please use ** link when sending emails to Senators. This will help us get the message across better. There is a very good chance the bill might be taken up next week in Senate. We need to do all we can to educate them about this bill.

Is there any link which confirms above?

[EB3Vee]

I appreciate the moderator to keep the forum troll free and relevant to the topic.

My logic - House recces date is set at Dec 8 and Senate should be close by. So if this bill has any chance to be taken up in senate, it has to be in the next 2 weeks.

[helpful_leo]

Folks - I have created a petition that will send emails (for free) as well as printed letters (for a fee) to your respective senators.

http://www.petition2congress.com/566...rants-hr-3012/

This is a variant of the **'s petition - I have taken their content and edited it and included some thoughts of my own. To me, it reads better than the ** petition. I would urge you to spend the $9 it takes to send a printed version of the letter to the Senators - it definitely has more impact than just an email.

The link allows you to edit the petition before sending if you so wish. If you are making changes, then please share them on this forum so that I can collate the useful changes and edit the original petition with them.

Thanks. Looks good.

Sorry for beating this to death - but do you guys think it worthwhile to mail senators with a rebuttal / deconstruction of the fallacious non-FIFO arguments. We have discussed those here previously, including the 'decreased MD/nurse/PhD', 'decreased first world/ European immigration', 'did not sign up/ change midway' and similar unfactual arguments.

I am concerned these could potentially gain traction with atleast some senate staffers/ senators. We could have a coherent, data driven, polite counter argument that exposes the mumbo-jumbo that the non-FIFO argument really is.

I am aware of the few downsides to this approach, and wonder what most folk here think?

[imdeng]

I believe we should only focus on the our positive message. Nobody (Senator/Congressperson) has as yet taken up the non-FIFO arguments seriously - as such these arguments only exist in the trackitt-board-universe. Responding to them will only elevate their profile. We have a clear positive message and the legislators are behind it - so we just need to stay the course and push it further. In case someone (e.g. Grassley) starts repeating non-FIFO arguments - then we can think of a coherent reply.

BTW - anybody responding to ROW-people on Trackitt is wasting their time. Ignore the trolls.

Thanks. Looks good.

Sorry for beating this to death - but do you guys think it worthwhile to mail senators with a rebuttal / deconstruction of the fallacious non-FIFO arguments. We have discussed those here previously, including the 'decreased MD/nurse/PhD', 'decreased first world/ European immigration', 'did not sign up/ change midway' and similar unfactual arguments.

I am concerned these could potentially gain traction with atleast some senate staffers/ senators. We could have a coherent, data driven, polite counter argument that exposes the mumbo-jumbo that the non-FIFO argument really is.

I am aware of the few downsides to this approach, and wonder what most folk here think?

[gcq]

I believe we should only focus on the our positive message. Nobody (Senator/Congressperson) has as yet taken up the non-FIFO arguments seriously - as such these arguments only exist in the trackitt-board-universe. Responding to them will only elevate their profile. We have a clear positive message and the legislators are behind it - so we just need to stay the course and push it further. In case someone (e.g. Grassley) starts repeating non-FIFO arguments - then we can think of a coherent reply.

BTW - anybody responding to ROW-people on Trackitt is wasting their time. Ignore the trolls.

Completely agree. We should respond in a positive concise manner. We should highlight our bill, its benefits in short few sentences. No need to respond to ROW ers baseless arguments. In fact we can straight away quote Chafetz's and Lamar Smith's introductory statements about the bill.