Not so sure about this. Any amendment is cause for debate. It may go to he House Judiciary committee and possibly get nixed there. Ultimately there's politics involved. I'd say that there is a better than average chance of it getting through but its not a breeze.Originally Posted by vishnu
I think the senate version of the bill is called something else (not HR 3012) and if there is an ammendment it would need to go back to the house.
Vizcard - since the amendment was agreed by Chaffetz (House member) and Grassley, my guess is that Chaffetz would already have got a majority consent prior to any deal with Grassley... but like you said, its all politics at this point. Looks like ** are done with action items and now just asking members to log in daily for updates on the bill
I don't mean to pour water over everyone's excitement. But the reason I V talks in open about the deal with Schumer and Grassley is because AILA outed the deal between the parties involved.
Otherwise we would still not know about it. I do not think the deal is finalized enough for a vote yet. So it may be months before we see any floor action.
The chances of unanimous consent or a vote before the 4th of July recess is zero! And I hope I am wrong as hell on this one
I will be happy if this passes before the new fiscal starts and the November elections. I am hopeful that this will pass. HR 3012 was considered dead 2 weeks back. But came back alive. This shows that there is definitely a lot going on behind the doors which is not visible to the public. I also read from Ron's forum that once it is enacted as law this cannot be challenged in a court.
So my hopes are still alive.
I also want to add one thing since this forum is all about predicting future PD movements. Please see Ron's post about the future PD movements which I felt is completely baseless claim.
http://www.immigration-information.c...t=17482&page=9
I lost respect for him after seeing the post. I thought he was one of the most neutral immigration attorneys. He proved me wrong.
May be one of you more informed guys in this field can challenge him on this.
Last edited by amulchandra; 06-27-2012 at 04:34 PM.
More than 300 Tech Companies and Organizations Tell Congress to Lift Per Country High Skilled Immigrant Limits
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mor...its-2012-06-27
Tech Industry Letter in Support of Per Country Cap Repeal
http://www.technet.org/wp-content/up...UN-27-2012.pdf
Totally agree, if you go through all the pages, he started off by calling the amendment benign and acceptable. Over last 2 days he has changed his view to align with his lawyer community and is expressing his opinion, which is devoid of facts, using harsh language.
Lawyers are always neutral, they can be on either side of truth depending on which pays more. The entire profession is built on getting paid to write ambiguous text and then making more money by defending all possible interpretations. Below are some of his quotes over last few days.
------------
6/22 - I agree that this looks pretty benign.
6/22 - I agree. This thing is so benign that if he had offered it in November, the bill would be law by now.
6/26 - If passed, this bill will be very good for our clients and our office. Still, I think that it is a shameful sellout.
6/26 - The irony in this is that by getting into bed with Grassley, and supporting his amendment to subject some H1B employers to mandatory audits, many people who would otherwise get greencards are now going to find that their I-140s will be revoked. ...
6/27 - I think that referring to the per-country limits as racism is a bit strong. There are valid arguments in favor of keeping per country limits on the family based side. Admitting enormous numbers of immigrants from a single country tends to slow, if not prevent their assimilation into our mainstream culture. ....
6/27 - Getting rid of the per country limits is one thing, reserving 90% of the entire quota for Chinese and Indians is quite another....
6/27 - Worldwide EB2 will likely retrogress several years and remain that way until the 90% set aside expires ...
------------
I am an Indian with Indian chargeability. I support HR 3012 but at the same time I agree that there is fraud, over saturation and IT is taking over. Be realistic - India does not produce on the order of 20k highly-skilled graduates that want to migrate to the US every year - a large number of truly highly skilled IIT/IIM types don't even want to come to the US since they find better opportunities in India. And that's not even counting the 'highly skilled' EB3 guys...
Agree that HR3012 is now required more than ever, and it is about fairness at the end of the day - the system is highly discriminatory right now. Fraud and over-saturation should be tackled in other ways.
How come every time you guys talk about eb3 you get a superiority complex and sound arrogant suddenly. There are real people who are non-fraud non-labor substitutes in the EB3 queue there. Do have some empathy.
I know people who get pushed into eb3 quagmire after 5 yrs of H1 even if their job qualifies for eb2 (with 4 yr CSE and US Masters and 5+ yrs exp). This is not even the body shop/ consulting companies I am talking about. The regular American orgs with less than 15% employees in H1. They all know to extend the life of their investment!
Porting is the only option left for EB3. When you are younger you can take a pay cut and file in EB2 through other companies. Not an easy decision to uproot your family again when you are older.
If you use hook and crook then you stand a better chance of being greened here.
Sorry for the venting post.
Yes Sportsfan. I was referring to the other user's comments.
I thought porting PD rules is already like that - should have gained the EB2 eligibility before the PD associated. Maybe I am wrong about that assumption. Will check up later or another discussion - it is not for this thread.
Can you please stop blaming...
1) EB3 guys. They have every right to port.
2) IT guys. That's where the jobs are. That's where it is still possible to get H1B. Most non-engineering employers do not want to sponsor. I have over half a dozen non-IT graduate friends who eventually migrated to IT because of that.
3) fraud - It isn't until proven, on a case-by-case basis.
4) over saturation - that is ridiculously self-serving. You made it to US because you deserved and now close the door. Please lead by example and go back.
And also, few thousands graduating from IITs/IIMs are the only "truly highly skilled" graduates India produces each year? There is only limited anecdotal evidence about them not wanting to come US, kind of what you read in TOI. Probably only because they think since every IT guy can make to US, it isn't their exclusive club any more.
sorry for the rant, but lot of your posts shows bias against IT guys, EB3 guys, non-MS guys.
PD: 08/25/2008 EB2I
Agreed on both points. I know many people who immigrated to this country in the 80s and 70s and they were the cream - engineers from IIT, BITS, doctors from AIIMS, MAMC, good English speakers. All of these people have integrated and assimilated quite well in American society. The Indian immigrants I interact with are a minority in that they are mostly non-IT types educated at the top 10 US schools. These people integrate well, get high paying jobs in a variety of fields, have friends from all over the world, etc.
HR3012 should eventually unite all skilled immigrants once long waits become everybody’s problems and not just IC problems - even though a large part of the wait will still be caused by I applicants overloading the system. (This assumes that the rift caused by HR 3012 will eventually heal.) I suspect this will eventually lead to more sensible and desirable legislation in the form of greater visa numbers and some form of a points based system. That is, if Congress can get off their ass and actually agree on something.
Last edited by abcx13; 06-28-2012 at 08:20 PM.
Sorry, I should have qualified that comment about EB3 more carefully. I didn't mean to imply that just because people don't have a MS they are somehow less worthy, but I can see how it comes off that way. Yes, I know Steve Jobs and Bill Gates didn't have a MS. Neither did a lot of other successful people. The MS filter is a coarse filter and it's clearly not perfect as there are many deserving people who don't have a MS. But how else do you segment and pick the best when a system is being overloaded? You could move to a points system I suppose where a non-MS immigrant could make up somehow with other aspects.
My problem with EB3, and what I was trying to poorly point out, is that you have a lot of really crappy applicants with questionable qualifications from diploma mills in India - just go look at the posts on Trackitt. I don't mind if you port because I realize that sometimes companies file in EB3 for stupid reasons (even for people with a MS).
Also, the part about only IT companies sponsoring is crap. All kinds of companies sponsor - I know people who've been sponsored in finance, mechanical engg, environmental engg, insurance, consulting, medicine, biotech, policy work, etc. IT isn't the only place where there are jobs. Go work as a petroleum engineer. See how much you'll make. If IT is the only field where the jobs are, how come the immigrants from other countries can find jobs in non-IT fields? The other distinction I would draw is between IT companies like Infosys, Cognizant, etc. and companies which actually innovate like the Intels or the Googles or the Applied Materials. You will probably call me an elitist, but I hate to break it to you - top CS graduates don't really want to work at a TCS or a Wipro. Go to a top 10 school. See where graduates work. The Indian IT companies aren't even on the radar because they do unexciting work and pay peanuts. Notice how none of them signed the Technet letter? Because this bill would actually be bad for business - the longer they can enslave the poor immigrants, the higher their margins.
At the end of the day, people need to realize that this isn't just a supply problem. It's also a demand problem. The demand is endless because you can drive a Hummer through the loopholes in the system and the Indian IT companies are willing to do that.
I realize this is a polarizing view because most of the immigration forums are dominated by IT guys but it is what it is.
Also, you are delusional if you think IIT guys don't want to come to the US these days because they have some sort of ego contest with people in IT companies. It's because the smart ones are unwilling to put up with a dead end IT job with no pay raises for 6 years. And whether you like it or not, the quality of India's engineering graduates declines really quickly as you start going down the college rankings.
Last edited by abcx13; 06-28-2012 at 08:46 PM.
Wow !! i have never seen anyone be so apologetic about his arrogance with even more arrogant attitude. Sorry, couldn't resist. Moderators, please feel free to delete my post if it seems controversial. To EB3Vee and PD2008AUG25, i wil just reiterate what sportsfan33 said, abcx13's comments are just his own and do not reflect the general opinion.
This is unreal. Extraordinary ability....really? We all talked about how EB1C is abused by employees and companies. But here someone who did not have any extraordinary ability or special skill is getting a green card by conning the USCIS and boy, they have complied.
http://news.yahoo.com/u-genius-visa-...0--sector.html
Imagine this in reference to my physician friend and senior who had three gold medals during his MBBS in India, had MPH from Johns Hopkins, has double MD in Internal Medicine, has Nephrology from University of Missouri, has Transplant Nephrology from Northwestern University, had excellent letters from top reputed universities and had multiple publications and citations was denied EB1 stating that he did not have required qualifications to qualify for this visa.
Unbelievable. I don't know how many others are there like her in the pile of applications that USCIS receives.
Jonty (one of the best fielders I've ever seen by the way),
Perhaps you are going a little OTT - probably on purpose.
It's a terrible article. A little more digging seems to reveal she has been granted an O-1 non-immigrant visa, which probably says more about the lawyer's ability. The same accusations can probably be levelled at some that obtain H and L visas. She just happens to be "newsworthy".
It also appears there was an RFE to deal with - described as "after initial hiccups" in one of the articles.Thanks to the help of her immigration lawyer Chris Wright, Bechard was bestowed the O-1 visa, commonly referred to as the "genius visa" by the U.S. government, "an internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize." Wright argued that her accomplishments in modeling and business earned her consideration for the visa.
Would I have given her an O-1 visa? No, probably not, but I don't know the full facts of her case.
The standards applied to an EB1A are far tougher. From the scant information available, she would have a tough time securing one of those.
The entertainment industry uses O-1 quite a lot, since many of the "artistic" types really can't fulfil the conditions required for an H1B and no other alternative exists.
In this specific case, I'm not sure she quite fits the definition of "fashion model" for which an H1B visa might have been available. In any case, her income is not fully derived from that activity so is not applicable anyway. I can't think of any other non-visitor non-immigrant class she could have applied under.
On the other hand, she has undoubtedly risen (no pun intended) to the top her particular field. In addition she has been prominently featured by name in both national and international publications with verifiably large circulations. I have no doubt she also commands a high salary relative to others in her field.
It's just horses for courses, but I suspect her connections helped. Again, that is nothing new - I've seen similar for entertainers from all over the world, including India.
Many of these have criminal convictions (including drugs) yet still seem to get their visa, seemingly contrary to the law or the standards applied to normal people. Such is life, where celebrity seems to have a value beyond anything else.
Last edited by Spectator; 06-29-2012 at 08:59 PM.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
Sorry, my bad. I thought she got it under EB1A which drove me nuts. But afterwards I realized that was O-1. But thanks for the details, Spec. You are always right on target. I wish I could articulate things like you do. I am sure pretty much everyone on this forum agree with me on that.Jonty (one of the best fielders I've ever seen by the way),
Perhaps you are going a little OTT - probably on purpose.
It's a terrible article. A little more digging seems to reveal she has been granted an O-1 non-immigrant visa, which probably says more about the lawyer's ability. The same accusations can probably be levelled at some that obtain H and L visas. She just happens to be "newsworthy".
It also appears there was an RFE to deal with - described as "after initial hiccups" in one of the articles.
Would I have given her an O-1 visa? No, probably not, but I don't know the full facts of her case.
The standards applied to an EB1A are far tougher. From the scant information available, she would have a tough time securing one of those.
The entertainment industry uses O-1 quite a lot, since many of the "artistic" types really can't fulfil the conditions required for an H1B and no other alternative exists.
In this specific case, I'm not sure she quite fits the definition of "fashion model" for which an H1B visa might have been available. In any case, her income is not fully derived from that activity so is not applicable anyway. I can't think of any other non-visitor non-immigrant class she could have applied under.
On the other hand, she has undoubtedly risen (no pun intended) to the top her particular field. In addition she has been prominently featured by name in both national and international publications with verifiably large circulations. I have no doubt she also commands a high salary relative to others in her field.
It's just horses for courses, but I suspect her connections helped. Again, that is nothing new - I've seen similar for entertainers from all over the world, including India.
Many of these have criminal convictions (including drugs) yet still seem to get their visa, seemingly contrary to the law or the standards applied to normal people. Such is life, where celebrity seems to have a value beyond anything else.
Jonty,
As I said - It was a badly written article open to misinterpretation.
Sometimes these things are sent to try us, but they do provide some light relief!
I'm sure I've said this before, but one of the oddest AAO denials I ever saw was under EB1A for a person claiming extraordinary ability in the art of paper cutting. I have to admit it did make me chuckle, but it does illustrate quite how broad the category can be.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
Yep that is the news that is extremely upset Jonty Rhodes in the Discussion-of-Bills-that-remove-the-Per-Country-Limits thread.
I agree EB3 have every right to port. But retention of their PD is not right. Let me explain why. The whole point of EB2 vs EB3 vs EB1, is the level of qualifications. So let's say someone who filed EB3 in 2003 had EB3 qualifications. That person has since acquired EB2 qualifications. So let's say they "port" in 2011. That implies they got EB2 qualifications in 2011. Someone filing EB2 in 2008 earned EB2 qualifications in 2008 - a whole 3 yrs before the porter. Yet based on the current rules, the porter gets preference. This flies in the face of first come- first serve.
My perspective is that if you port across categories (EB3 -> EB2 or EB2->EB2), you should not be able to retain your PD.
I could see why after I read throiugh the article. The article is quite anti immigrant and starts on a really dumb note. Giving an example of Hugh Hefner's model is not quite pro-immigrant or smart one would say!
I no longer provide calculations/predictions ever since whereismyGC.com was created.
I do run this site only as an administrator. Our goal is to improve clarity of GC process to help people plan their lives better.
Use the info at your risk. None of this is legal advice.
Forum Glossary | Forum Rules and Guidelines | If your published post disappeared, check - Lies and Misinformation thread
Vizcard, there are other arbitrary rules in the system that favor EB2 over EB3 disproportionately. EB3-IC receives zero spillover every year as all of it is consumed by EB2-IC. So someone who applied in EB2-IC in 2008 will receive his GC much before someone who applied in EB3-IC in 2006. An alternate rule could be to allocate at least portion of spillover to EB3-IC so that the category can move a little bit at least. But someone crafted the category based spill over rule.
I know many in EB2-IC will be annoyed at my comment and argue that EB2 requires higher experience and the current spill over rule is justified. Even though i am in EB2 i do not agree with the 100% spillover being consumed by a higher category. If we were to assign a number to the relative importance of EB1/Eb2 and Eb2/Eb3 i am quite sure none of us will come up with infinity as the answer, but that is what the current spillover rule assumes that a person in EB1 is infinitely more important than one in Eb2 and one in Eb2 is infinitely more important than Eb3 irrespective of their priority dates !!!
My point is that a limited amount of resources are being allocated, no system of rules can be entirely fair to everyone. What we should keep in mind is that none of us in any of the categories devised the rules and all of us irrespective of the category will use the current set of rules to our advantage.
It is just very convenient to assume that the part of the system that favors us is fair and the part that does not favor us is unfair.
Last edited by GhostWriter; 07-01-2012 at 02:48 PM.
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.
Last edited by vizcard; 07-01-2012 at 03:41 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote