bobzibub
05-23 07:06 PM
Dear Senator ____;
Subject: Treating the currently backlogged legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants and family-based applicants in the Immigration Reform bill S. 1348.
I am a member of Immigration Voice (www.immigrationvoice.org). Immigration Voice represents the interest of 500,000 legal skilled immigrants in the United States on the path to green cards who have been stuck in enormous backlogs and delays in immigration process.
The career growth, job mobility and quality of life of a half a million legal skilled immigrants is subverted by the bill in its current form.
Specifically, the restrictions on employment mobility of current applicants affected by this bill, limit improvements in all wage rates. This is because when the market for highly skilled staff improves (as it is doing today), we have significant bureaucratic barriers placed that prevent us from changing jobs. This creates a mis-allocation of scarce talent and limits the growth of the high tech industry as a whole.
The permanent residency process currently takes a great many years, but technologies change fast. Staying in the same job can make a tech career stagnant. Few Americans in the technology field are willing to stay in the same position within their current company for that many years. So, Again, this limits growth in the technology industry because scarce skills are being miss-allocated.
It is not just about changing jobs: I also get requests from friends that want me to improve their website or even join a start-up. They are dumbfounded when I tell them I may not because it is illegal for me to do so. Nor may I volunteer my time. Nor may I start my own company because I may not work for myself. The economic cost of a half-million highly skilled people not being able to start a business must be staggering.
Personally, since moving to the "land of the free", I find it ironic that I lost my economic freedom. It is also heartbreaking to see the rug pulled out from beneath us when we've been such law-abiding and dedicated participants in the current system all these years. In terms of years, in terms of opportunity lost, and in terms of money wasted on lawyers, we humbly request an equitable solution for all skilled, law-abiding immigrants.
Here are some specific reasons why the current CIR bill fails us, and fails the US economy. Also suggestions on improvements that can be made:
1. Section 501(b) reduces the number of green cards to legal skilled immigrants from the current 140,000/year to 90,000/year and diverts the major portion of those green cards to future low-skills guest workers under the Y visa program. Instead of increasing that number to reduce the backlogs this section take a step backwards and would exacerbate the backlogs. On the other hand, 503(f)(2) of this act would allocate an estimated 11 million green cards over a time frame of 5 years – 2.2 million a year – to undocumented immigrants. Immigration Voice requests congress to treat legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants and increase the number of green cards to at least 250,000 for 5 years for currently backlogged applicants defined under Sec. 502(d)(2) in order to reduce to current backlog before the untested points based merit system is functional.
2. Immigration Voice requests congress to waive per-country ceilings on backlogged petitions to be processed under Sec. 502(d)(2) in order to make the backlog reduction more efficient. The bill provides a very similar waiver from per-country ceilings to family based pending petitions in section 508(b).
3. Immigration Voice requests congress to allow legal skilled immigrants to file for adjustment of status for those applicants who have been certified by DOL to be doing jobs no US citizen is willing, qualified or able to do. This would be at parity with provisions for undocumented immigrants who would qualify for instant work permit (probationary card) that allows them to work without employer sponsor and without department of labor’s certification simply by registering.
We at Immigration Voice strongly opposes the bill S 1348 in its current form and requests congress to amend this bill and treat the legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants, future guest-workers and pending family-based applicants.
Sincerely,
<your name>
Subject: Treating the currently backlogged legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants and family-based applicants in the Immigration Reform bill S. 1348.
I am a member of Immigration Voice (www.immigrationvoice.org). Immigration Voice represents the interest of 500,000 legal skilled immigrants in the United States on the path to green cards who have been stuck in enormous backlogs and delays in immigration process.
The career growth, job mobility and quality of life of a half a million legal skilled immigrants is subverted by the bill in its current form.
Specifically, the restrictions on employment mobility of current applicants affected by this bill, limit improvements in all wage rates. This is because when the market for highly skilled staff improves (as it is doing today), we have significant bureaucratic barriers placed that prevent us from changing jobs. This creates a mis-allocation of scarce talent and limits the growth of the high tech industry as a whole.
The permanent residency process currently takes a great many years, but technologies change fast. Staying in the same job can make a tech career stagnant. Few Americans in the technology field are willing to stay in the same position within their current company for that many years. So, Again, this limits growth in the technology industry because scarce skills are being miss-allocated.
It is not just about changing jobs: I also get requests from friends that want me to improve their website or even join a start-up. They are dumbfounded when I tell them I may not because it is illegal for me to do so. Nor may I volunteer my time. Nor may I start my own company because I may not work for myself. The economic cost of a half-million highly skilled people not being able to start a business must be staggering.
Personally, since moving to the "land of the free", I find it ironic that I lost my economic freedom. It is also heartbreaking to see the rug pulled out from beneath us when we've been such law-abiding and dedicated participants in the current system all these years. In terms of years, in terms of opportunity lost, and in terms of money wasted on lawyers, we humbly request an equitable solution for all skilled, law-abiding immigrants.
Here are some specific reasons why the current CIR bill fails us, and fails the US economy. Also suggestions on improvements that can be made:
1. Section 501(b) reduces the number of green cards to legal skilled immigrants from the current 140,000/year to 90,000/year and diverts the major portion of those green cards to future low-skills guest workers under the Y visa program. Instead of increasing that number to reduce the backlogs this section take a step backwards and would exacerbate the backlogs. On the other hand, 503(f)(2) of this act would allocate an estimated 11 million green cards over a time frame of 5 years – 2.2 million a year – to undocumented immigrants. Immigration Voice requests congress to treat legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants and increase the number of green cards to at least 250,000 for 5 years for currently backlogged applicants defined under Sec. 502(d)(2) in order to reduce to current backlog before the untested points based merit system is functional.
2. Immigration Voice requests congress to waive per-country ceilings on backlogged petitions to be processed under Sec. 502(d)(2) in order to make the backlog reduction more efficient. The bill provides a very similar waiver from per-country ceilings to family based pending petitions in section 508(b).
3. Immigration Voice requests congress to allow legal skilled immigrants to file for adjustment of status for those applicants who have been certified by DOL to be doing jobs no US citizen is willing, qualified or able to do. This would be at parity with provisions for undocumented immigrants who would qualify for instant work permit (probationary card) that allows them to work without employer sponsor and without department of labor’s certification simply by registering.
We at Immigration Voice strongly opposes the bill S 1348 in its current form and requests congress to amend this bill and treat the legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants, future guest-workers and pending family-based applicants.
Sincerely,
<your name>
wallpaper in the ackground (hooray
mnkaushik
08-31 10:11 AM
Congratulations mnkaushik?
How many such cases are with uscis? And what happens to the one you filed for yourself?
During July 07, i know some of the couples did apply twice once a primary and other as dependent on the other. In July 07, wife and i did not take that approach and had separate applications. In August 08, i applied for my second 485 as her dependent since i would have to wait a decade to get gc through my application. For now, my other application shows under review. Once i get GC in my hands, then i will ask my compnay lawyer if there is a need for withdrawing my other application.
How many such cases are with uscis? And what happens to the one you filed for yourself?
During July 07, i know some of the couples did apply twice once a primary and other as dependent on the other. In July 07, wife and i did not take that approach and had separate applications. In August 08, i applied for my second 485 as her dependent since i would have to wait a decade to get gc through my application. For now, my other application shows under review. Once i get GC in my hands, then i will ask my compnay lawyer if there is a need for withdrawing my other application.
snathan
05-01 12:35 PM
I would not support this at all. Though it would clear the back log for the primary immigrant. What about the spouse and children. When you get your GC, dont you want to get it for your spouse and kids. Do you want them to keep in limbo for five years. It can be counted against family quota but should be given along with the primary. Otherwise its crap.
This might be antis work to divide the community. So be aware.
This might be antis work to divide the community. So be aware.
2011 BACKGROUNDCHARACTER middot; PUPPIES
cr52401
06-11 10:07 PM
All checks cashed June 8th. It was sent to Nebrasks. I hardy just could read the SRC letters in back of my check. Online image in not good. I guess it has gone to Texas sercice center.
Do you know how long for receipt letter?
Thanks.
Do you know how long for receipt letter?
Thanks.
more...
niraja74
04-09 05:05 AM
I searched my case on FLC data center and found following for my LC approval
Employer_Job_Title = Computer Project Manager
Prevailing_Wage_Job_Title = Computer Project Manager
Prevailing_Wage_Level = Level II
Prevailing_Wage_SOC_CODE = 11-9041.00
Prevailing_Wage_SOC_Title = Engineering Managers
Prevailing_Wage_Source = OES
While I work as senior software/application developer in my current role with the same employer who filed my LC and GC.
Now I am getting an offer from another employer with same title "Senior Software Engineer".
Is it advisable to change job as my job code (job description) might be different from the one that was mentioned in LC?
Thanks in advance for your inputs and thoughts.
Employer_Job_Title = Computer Project Manager
Prevailing_Wage_Job_Title = Computer Project Manager
Prevailing_Wage_Level = Level II
Prevailing_Wage_SOC_CODE = 11-9041.00
Prevailing_Wage_SOC_Title = Engineering Managers
Prevailing_Wage_Source = OES
While I work as senior software/application developer in my current role with the same employer who filed my LC and GC.
Now I am getting an offer from another employer with same title "Senior Software Engineer".
Is it advisable to change job as my job code (job description) might be different from the one that was mentioned in LC?
Thanks in advance for your inputs and thoughts.
gccovet
02-09 03:38 PM
Hi,
I have sent my contribution of $21 through paypal.
Payment Sent (Unique Transaction ID #0FB67301XJ308793P)
Thank you Pachaik,
With 15 contributors, We are now at $484.00
I have sent my contribution of $21 through paypal.
Payment Sent (Unique Transaction ID #0FB67301XJ308793P)
Thank you Pachaik,
With 15 contributors, We are now at $484.00
more...
ThinkTwice
07-11 04:43 PM
I have mailed you the information.
Hi Friends, I came to know about this protest and would like to pass on the information about the protest to Indian Student Assocaition [strength over 600 active members] at San Jose state University and possible Santa Clara University. I am sure my fellow students will be proud to contribute to the indian community. So, Kindly let me know more details ASAP becuase its already wednesday. My email is sampathg4@yahoo.com.
- Sampath Gadamsetty
Hi Friends, I came to know about this protest and would like to pass on the information about the protest to Indian Student Assocaition [strength over 600 active members] at San Jose state University and possible Santa Clara University. I am sure my fellow students will be proud to contribute to the indian community. So, Kindly let me know more details ASAP becuase its already wednesday. My email is sampathg4@yahoo.com.
- Sampath Gadamsetty
2010 winter desktop ackground
WaldenPond
06-28 04:37 PM
Hello LCtank,
Thanks for the excellent suggestion. Do you know Dr. Woo or do you know someone who would know Dr. Woo? That would help a lot. Will initiate the contact with 80-20 initiative right away.
If anybody has more of such suggestions/leads please send them across and help this effort.
Thanks again,
WaldenPond
Thanks for the excellent suggestion. Do you know Dr. Woo or do you know someone who would know Dr. Woo? That would help a lot. Will initiate the contact with 80-20 initiative right away.
If anybody has more of such suggestions/leads please send them across and help this effort.
Thanks again,
WaldenPond
more...
Mount Soche
11-06 02:27 PM
I'm a july filer (July 16th)
have gotten EAD
Case status online says AP approved on Nov 2nd.
But NO FP.
Opened a SR on Oct 19th but don't have an appointment.
Called again yesterday and was told to call back on Nov 19th if I still don't have FP appointment.
Of the 6 filers at my job, only 2 got FP...very strange.
FYI, when I called the USCIS, they said it is very unusual not to get FP right after receipt notices. Apparently, the FP appointments are sent "automatically" after the receipts are generated/sent etc. That's what the USCIS rep told me anyways and she opened a SR on her own based on the info I gave her that my FP appointment hadn't arrived after over 100 days.
have gotten EAD
Case status online says AP approved on Nov 2nd.
But NO FP.
Opened a SR on Oct 19th but don't have an appointment.
Called again yesterday and was told to call back on Nov 19th if I still don't have FP appointment.
Of the 6 filers at my job, only 2 got FP...very strange.
FYI, when I called the USCIS, they said it is very unusual not to get FP right after receipt notices. Apparently, the FP appointments are sent "automatically" after the receipts are generated/sent etc. That's what the USCIS rep told me anyways and she opened a SR on her own based on the info I gave her that my FP appointment hadn't arrived after over 100 days.
hair romantic puppy wallpaper
pitha
07-08 11:08 AM
no it will not be voilation of the law at all. consider this scenario thats been going on for the last 30+ years. For example July 2006 visa bulletin for EB2 india was jan 2003 and the August 2006 visa bulletin for EB2 india was unavailable. EB2 india visa numbers might have already been used up when the August 2006 visa bulletin was released but they still accepted the AOS petitions filed until the end of July 2006, they did not issue an updated visa bulletin or a revised visa bulletin saying eb2 india numbers are used up and they will not accept eb2 india aos applications, they continued accpeting AOS applications until the end of july 2006.
If you have the patience you can go through the visa bulletin archieves and find many such examples. The point is for the last 30+ years USCIS\DOS accepted applications according to the visa bulletin even when visa numbers were used up, they could have just followed the same precedent that they themselves set for the last 30+ years and accepted the applications this time as well without issuing a revised visa bulletin. I am no legal expert but that is how i see it.
It gets interesting. Doesn't it? Even if the court agrees that this is a fiasco and would like to compensate the beneficiaries by allowing us to file for 485, it would be in direct violation of the law that " there must be a number available on the day of filing ".We don't have any numbers. Do we? My point is, will a judicial system go out of the box and allow us to file when there are no visa numbers available? The only way is get numbers and make every one file and the only way for that is to undo what the USCIS has done in the last 2 weeks of June. Just my thoughts. I am ready to take anything positive out of this because I have least hopes pegged on the law suit.
If you have the patience you can go through the visa bulletin archieves and find many such examples. The point is for the last 30+ years USCIS\DOS accepted applications according to the visa bulletin even when visa numbers were used up, they could have just followed the same precedent that they themselves set for the last 30+ years and accepted the applications this time as well without issuing a revised visa bulletin. I am no legal expert but that is how i see it.
It gets interesting. Doesn't it? Even if the court agrees that this is a fiasco and would like to compensate the beneficiaries by allowing us to file for 485, it would be in direct violation of the law that " there must be a number available on the day of filing ".We don't have any numbers. Do we? My point is, will a judicial system go out of the box and allow us to file when there are no visa numbers available? The only way is get numbers and make every one file and the only way for that is to undo what the USCIS has done in the last 2 weeks of June. Just my thoughts. I am ready to take anything positive out of this because I have least hopes pegged on the law suit.
more...
sethurama
06-13 11:33 PM
My 485 applications reached NSC on June 4th, 2007. I have called my attorney. They haven't received anything so far. I need to wait for few more days./
hot 3 Pretty Beagle puppies on
priti8888
10-08 08:25 PM
All EB categories will be current all the time. As soon as a I485 EB case is filed the visa number should be allocated to the first 8000 odd cases for that category based on the PD of application. If a new case is filed tomorrow with a old PD he will get the visa number and the last guys application will move to waiting list. At the beginning of the year all visa numbers are allocated and nothing is wasted, even if the case is having issues like RFE, FBI check, etc the applicant knows that once cleared he will get his GC.
.
You're kidding me...How is your suggestion more efficient..????
So they should keep sorting and moving visa numbers from one application to another based on PD.??
if thats the case they would have to wait to give GC on the very last day of the year...
.
You're kidding me...How is your suggestion more efficient..????
So they should keep sorting and moving visa numbers from one application to another based on PD.??
if thats the case they would have to wait to give GC on the very last day of the year...
more...
house Puppies Wallpaper Desktop.
gccovet
02-10 02:22 PM
As promised, I am contributing another $25.00 as $1000.00 has crossed. (Cheque has been posted)
I will again donate another $25 when we cross $2000.00
Comeon folks, we can do it.
So far...29 contributions only.....
GCCovet
I will again donate another $25 when we cross $2000.00
Comeon folks, we can do it.
So far...29 contributions only.....
GCCovet
tattoo wallpaper. cute puppies
ch102
03-16 12:21 PM
some useful info from Ron gotcher
http://imminfo.com/Newsletter/2009-3/2009-03.html
http://imminfo.com/Newsletter/2009-3/2009-03.html
more...
pictures hot wallpaper cute puppies and
iam4u4ever
09-28 04:27 PM
By Self employment, do you mean working on 1099 or by starting a business and working for it?
by starting a business and working for it ?
thanks
by starting a business and working for it ?
thanks
dresses Cute Expressive Puppies over a
sss9i
05-23 07:56 AM
I sent to Mr.SessionsMr.Graham and Mrs.Clinton
Dear Senator:
Good morning~
Subject: Treating the currently backlogged legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants and family-based applicants in the Immigration Reform bill S. 1348.
Immigration Voice (www.immigrationvoice.org) represents the interest of 500,000 legal skilled immigrants in the United States on the path to green cards who have been stuck in enormous backlogs and delays in immigration process.
The career growth, job mobility and qualify of life of these half a million legal skilled immigrants is subverted by the bill in its current form.
1. Section 501(b) reduces the number of green cards to legal skilled immigrants from the current 140,000/year to 90,000/year and diverts the major portion of those green cards to future low-skills guest workers under the Y visa program. Instead of increasing that number to reduce the backlogs this section take a step backwards and would exacerbate the backlogs. On the other hand, 503(f)(2) of this act would allocate an estimated 11 million green cards over a time frame of 5 years – 2.2 million a year – to undocumented immigrants. Immigration Voice requests congress to treat legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants and increase the number of green cards to at least 250,000 for 5 years for currently backlogged applicants defined under Sec. 502(d)(2) in order to reduce to current backlog before the untested points based merit system is functional.
2. Immigration Voice requests congress to waive per-country ceilings on backlogged petitions to be processed under Sec. 502(d)(2) in order to make the backlog reduction more efficient. The bill provides a very similar waiver from per-country ceilings to family based pending petitions in section 508(b).
3. Immigration Voice requests congress to allow legal skilled immigrants to file for adjustment of status for those applicants who have been certified by DOL to be doing jobs no US citizen is willing qualified or able to do. This would be at parity with provisions for undocumented immigrants who would qualify for instant work permit (probationary card) that allows them to work without employer sponsor and without department of labor’s certification by simply by registering.
Immigration Voice strongly opposes the bill S 1348 in its current form and requests congress to amend this bill and treat the legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants, future guest-workers and pending family-based applicants.
Thanks,
Dr.Gaddipati
Dear Senator:
Good morning~
Subject: Treating the currently backlogged legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants and family-based applicants in the Immigration Reform bill S. 1348.
Immigration Voice (www.immigrationvoice.org) represents the interest of 500,000 legal skilled immigrants in the United States on the path to green cards who have been stuck in enormous backlogs and delays in immigration process.
The career growth, job mobility and qualify of life of these half a million legal skilled immigrants is subverted by the bill in its current form.
1. Section 501(b) reduces the number of green cards to legal skilled immigrants from the current 140,000/year to 90,000/year and diverts the major portion of those green cards to future low-skills guest workers under the Y visa program. Instead of increasing that number to reduce the backlogs this section take a step backwards and would exacerbate the backlogs. On the other hand, 503(f)(2) of this act would allocate an estimated 11 million green cards over a time frame of 5 years – 2.2 million a year – to undocumented immigrants. Immigration Voice requests congress to treat legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants and increase the number of green cards to at least 250,000 for 5 years for currently backlogged applicants defined under Sec. 502(d)(2) in order to reduce to current backlog before the untested points based merit system is functional.
2. Immigration Voice requests congress to waive per-country ceilings on backlogged petitions to be processed under Sec. 502(d)(2) in order to make the backlog reduction more efficient. The bill provides a very similar waiver from per-country ceilings to family based pending petitions in section 508(b).
3. Immigration Voice requests congress to allow legal skilled immigrants to file for adjustment of status for those applicants who have been certified by DOL to be doing jobs no US citizen is willing qualified or able to do. This would be at parity with provisions for undocumented immigrants who would qualify for instant work permit (probationary card) that allows them to work without employer sponsor and without department of labor’s certification by simply by registering.
Immigration Voice strongly opposes the bill S 1348 in its current form and requests congress to amend this bill and treat the legal skilled immigrants at parity with undocumented immigrants, future guest-workers and pending family-based applicants.
Thanks,
Dr.Gaddipati
more...
makeup two puppies - english bulldog
doshhar
07-07 12:33 PM
I have started similar mission on Murthy but didn't get much attention. I think this is the right place to discuss this.
I can gather 100+ people from Chicago for peaceful rally on July 14th at Chicago USCIS office.
Any one from Chicago reading this thread?
Let's DO IT
I can gather 100+ people from Chicago for peaceful rally on July 14th at Chicago USCIS office.
Any one from Chicago reading this thread?
Let's DO IT
girlfriend Couple in love Spitz puppies on white ackground
desi3933
06-28 09:39 AM
desi3933,
Your points well taken. However all the arguments you are saying about H1B is the practical way employers do their hiring. However as per law they cannot discriminate based on immigration status including H1B. Employers cannot even ask the candidate to have a particular type of work authorization.
Let me ask you a straight question -
Are you suggesting the employer is required, by law, to file for H-1B sponsorship for the job applicant?
.
Your points well taken. However all the arguments you are saying about H1B is the practical way employers do their hiring. However as per law they cannot discriminate based on immigration status including H1B. Employers cannot even ask the candidate to have a particular type of work authorization.
Let me ask you a straight question -
Are you suggesting the employer is required, by law, to file for H-1B sponsorship for the job applicant?
.
hairstyles Three Pomeranian Puppies
clockwork
07-05 09:27 AM
Mine reached at July 02 10:25am at Lincon,NE. Received by J.Barrret. Ship date June 29.
Mine also reached on July 2nd at 10:25AM and received by J.Barrret.
Mine also reached on July 2nd at 10:25AM and received by J.Barrret.
arung
08-13 10:37 AM
I think one need to create database based on who came in what year and what is the priority data's . True there are people like me came in 2000 and still has priority date as Dec 2004, this is not my fault, this is forced by GC process tied with employer.
The landing or start date of H1b/L1B + old priority date should be the real beneficiary of spillover in respective of EB.
The landing or start date of H1b/L1B + old priority date should be the real beneficiary of spillover in respective of EB.
h1techSlave
05-01 09:43 AM
One of my friends was a plaintiff in the lawsuit that you mention. As you mention, USCIS quickly approved all cases. So didn't the plaintiffs won the case?
I hope our potential lawsuit will have a similar effect. We file a lawsuit saying we are discriminated based on country of birth. USCIS opposes the lawsuit, but quickly approves all our 485s. We both win in that situation.
I would be happy if EB2 India gets upto Dec04. Forget EB3. Also any lawsuit is only sustainable only if its properly funded, well represented and there is wide public support if you expect the class action status. Mr Rajiv Khanna filed a lawsuit for 485 backlogs and its class action status was denied by the judge which I personally think was a biased judge and later USCIS quickly approved 485s of plaintiffs making lawsuit moot.
I hope our potential lawsuit will have a similar effect. We file a lawsuit saying we are discriminated based on country of birth. USCIS opposes the lawsuit, but quickly approves all our 485s. We both win in that situation.
I would be happy if EB2 India gets upto Dec04. Forget EB3. Also any lawsuit is only sustainable only if its properly funded, well represented and there is wide public support if you expect the class action status. Mr Rajiv Khanna filed a lawsuit for 485 backlogs and its class action status was denied by the judge which I personally think was a biased judge and later USCIS quickly approved 485s of plaintiffs making lawsuit moot.
No comments:
Post a Comment