dicarol18
07-26 02:10 PM
I got the Receipt Notice for the 140...I sent my 140-485-765 on June 30, reached Nebraska on July 2...my file was sent to Texas and July 12 they sent the Receipt Notice for the 140 ...I hope that after they changed the visa bulletin on July 17, I will receive the rest of the Receipts...
wallpaper Used Opel Tigra 1996
fromnaija
08-03 12:12 PM
With a priority date of July 2006, you are looking at another four to five years before you get your GC barring any changes in current laws and available visa. Many people advise that you maintain your H1 during the wait just to have a fallback position in case your 485 is denied.
So my status doesnt change until my I 485 is approved- any idea how long that will take? My H 1B expires in Nov of 2007 should I get an extension? Thank you for your replies- Lisa
So my status doesnt change until my I 485 is approved- any idea how long that will take? My H 1B expires in Nov of 2007 should I get an extension? Thank you for your replies- Lisa
Macaca
04-22 09:07 AM
Passing On H-1b Costs to the Employee? (http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/FeesArticle07.18.2006.pdf) -- Smart Business Practice or DOL Violation?, by Michael F. Hammond and Damaris Del Valle
After all the costs associated with an H-1B petition are totaled, the sum can be alarming. In order to offset this cost, some employers ask that the beneficiary, the employee who is being hired, reimburse the company in whole or in part. Which costs may and may not be paid by the beneficiary can be a tricky matter. What follows is an analysis of H-1B costs and who may pay what.
All deductions from an H-1B worker’s pay fall into three categories: authorized, unauthorized, or prohibited. Authorized deductions can be taken without worry of whether or not such a deduction will lower the employee’s rate of pay below the required wage rate. Unauthorized deductions, counter to what the term may connote, can be taken from an employee’s wage but are considered non-payment and are only allowed if the beneficiary’s wage rate, after the deduction(s), is greater than the required amount listed on the Labor Condition Application (LCA). Unauthorized deductions cannot push the employee’s wage below either the prevailing wage rate or the actual wage rate, i.e. salaries of those similarly employed and qualified at the work site. Prohibited deductions may not be taken from the employee’s pay regardless of the effect they would have on the required wage rate.
The most straightforward of the deductions is the prohibited deduction. The Training Fee associated with the H-1B petition is the only prohibited deduction associated with the cost of filing an H-1B petition. Rajan v. International Business Solutions, Ltd. and the language in the relevant regulation make it very clear that the Training Fee is to be paid by the employer or a third party; it is not to be reimbursed in part or whole by the employee. This fee must be completely shouldered by the employer or a party who is not the employee.
Deductions are considered by the Department of Labor (DOL) to be authorized if:
The deduction is reported as such on the employer’s payroll records,
The employee has voluntarily agreed to the deduction and such agreement is documented in writing (a job offer which carries a deduction as a condition of employment does not meet this requirement),
The deduction is for a matter that is principally for the benefit of the employee,
The deduction is not a recoupment of the employer’s business expenses,
The amount deducted does not exceed the fair market value or the actual cost (whichever is lower) of the matter covered, and
The amount deducted is not more than 25% of the employee’s disposable earning.
An Education Evaluation arguably qualifies as an authorized deduction. Similar to a translation fee, which is payable by the employee, the employee is benefiting from the evaluation and will be able to use it in the future in his/her private capacity if s/he so wishes. Of course, if the employee is paying for the evaluation, then s/he must be able to acquire a copy of the evaluation so that the future benefit upon which his/her payment is presumed is a real possibility.
Attorney’s fees associated with obtaining H-4 status for family members accompanying the Beneficiary may qualify as authorized deductions since the Beneficiary is the party who primarily benefits from such fees. In addition, attorney fees associated with visa issuance, assuming that international travel is not a requirement for the position, could be properly considered as authorized deductions. In order to properly deduct the attorney fees associated with these processes, it is important that the attorney break down the specifics of how much is being charged for each element of the H-1B process- this will allow the employer to deduct those fees associated with the retention of the visas for the accompanying family members without concerning itself with the deduction requirements necessary for unauthorized deductions.
The circumstances surrounding the Premium Processing Fee determine if deduction of the fee is to qualify as authorized or unauthorized. While the speedy decision that the Premium Processing Fee guarantees often benefits both the employer and the employee, it is important to take notice of which party requests and benefits most from premium processing. If the employee has decided to utilize premium processing for his/her own personal benefit, then the employer may be reimbursed by the employee in accordance with the requirements established by the DOL for authorized deductions. If the employer is the party desiring premium process and who will benefit from such processing, then any deductions from the employee’s pay are unauthorized and, as such Deduction of attorney’s fees associated with the filing of the LCA or H-1B and the Base Fee (or I-129 Fee) are considered to be unauthorized. These fees are considered to be the employer’s business expenses and, for this reason, are not authorized deductions. These fees may be deducted from the employee’s pay so long as they do not drop the rate of pay below the required wage rate.
It is not clear whether or not the Fraud Fee which was implemented in March 2005 is unauthorized or prohibited. The language of the act regarding the Fraud Fee states that “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fraud prevention and detection fee on an employer filing a petition.”10 Almost identical language is used in the Act to refer to the Training Fee.11 Such similarity could be read to mean that the restrictions of the Training Fee also apply to the Fraud Fee. However, 20 C.F.R. 655 is explicit in saying that the employee cannot pay the Training Fee; no such statement is made regarding the Fraud Fee. The regulation regarding the Training Fee, 20 C.F.R. 655, predates the creation of the Fraud Fee, which may explain this discrepancy. Nonetheless, the language referring to the Fraud Fee is not explicitly prohibitive and an employer may decide to be reimbursed by the employee. If an employer chooses to do so, any deductions from the employee’s salary to pay for this fee must meet the DOL requirements for unauthorized deductions. 12
Before any payments are made by the employee or deductions are taken from his/her pay to reimburse the employer, it must be determined if such deduction is permitted and if so, whether or not it is authorized or unauthorized. Once these preliminary determinations are made, appropriate steps must be taken to ensure that the DOL’s requirements are met. As a practical matter, there are very few circumstances in which the prospective employee could legally be made to pay for the costs associated with the H-1b process without an employer risking non-compliance and causing significant record keeping.
After all the costs associated with an H-1B petition are totaled, the sum can be alarming. In order to offset this cost, some employers ask that the beneficiary, the employee who is being hired, reimburse the company in whole or in part. Which costs may and may not be paid by the beneficiary can be a tricky matter. What follows is an analysis of H-1B costs and who may pay what.
All deductions from an H-1B worker’s pay fall into three categories: authorized, unauthorized, or prohibited. Authorized deductions can be taken without worry of whether or not such a deduction will lower the employee’s rate of pay below the required wage rate. Unauthorized deductions, counter to what the term may connote, can be taken from an employee’s wage but are considered non-payment and are only allowed if the beneficiary’s wage rate, after the deduction(s), is greater than the required amount listed on the Labor Condition Application (LCA). Unauthorized deductions cannot push the employee’s wage below either the prevailing wage rate or the actual wage rate, i.e. salaries of those similarly employed and qualified at the work site. Prohibited deductions may not be taken from the employee’s pay regardless of the effect they would have on the required wage rate.
The most straightforward of the deductions is the prohibited deduction. The Training Fee associated with the H-1B petition is the only prohibited deduction associated with the cost of filing an H-1B petition. Rajan v. International Business Solutions, Ltd. and the language in the relevant regulation make it very clear that the Training Fee is to be paid by the employer or a third party; it is not to be reimbursed in part or whole by the employee. This fee must be completely shouldered by the employer or a party who is not the employee.
Deductions are considered by the Department of Labor (DOL) to be authorized if:
The deduction is reported as such on the employer’s payroll records,
The employee has voluntarily agreed to the deduction and such agreement is documented in writing (a job offer which carries a deduction as a condition of employment does not meet this requirement),
The deduction is for a matter that is principally for the benefit of the employee,
The deduction is not a recoupment of the employer’s business expenses,
The amount deducted does not exceed the fair market value or the actual cost (whichever is lower) of the matter covered, and
The amount deducted is not more than 25% of the employee’s disposable earning.
An Education Evaluation arguably qualifies as an authorized deduction. Similar to a translation fee, which is payable by the employee, the employee is benefiting from the evaluation and will be able to use it in the future in his/her private capacity if s/he so wishes. Of course, if the employee is paying for the evaluation, then s/he must be able to acquire a copy of the evaluation so that the future benefit upon which his/her payment is presumed is a real possibility.
Attorney’s fees associated with obtaining H-4 status for family members accompanying the Beneficiary may qualify as authorized deductions since the Beneficiary is the party who primarily benefits from such fees. In addition, attorney fees associated with visa issuance, assuming that international travel is not a requirement for the position, could be properly considered as authorized deductions. In order to properly deduct the attorney fees associated with these processes, it is important that the attorney break down the specifics of how much is being charged for each element of the H-1B process- this will allow the employer to deduct those fees associated with the retention of the visas for the accompanying family members without concerning itself with the deduction requirements necessary for unauthorized deductions.
The circumstances surrounding the Premium Processing Fee determine if deduction of the fee is to qualify as authorized or unauthorized. While the speedy decision that the Premium Processing Fee guarantees often benefits both the employer and the employee, it is important to take notice of which party requests and benefits most from premium processing. If the employee has decided to utilize premium processing for his/her own personal benefit, then the employer may be reimbursed by the employee in accordance with the requirements established by the DOL for authorized deductions. If the employer is the party desiring premium process and who will benefit from such processing, then any deductions from the employee’s pay are unauthorized and, as such Deduction of attorney’s fees associated with the filing of the LCA or H-1B and the Base Fee (or I-129 Fee) are considered to be unauthorized. These fees are considered to be the employer’s business expenses and, for this reason, are not authorized deductions. These fees may be deducted from the employee’s pay so long as they do not drop the rate of pay below the required wage rate.
It is not clear whether or not the Fraud Fee which was implemented in March 2005 is unauthorized or prohibited. The language of the act regarding the Fraud Fee states that “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fraud prevention and detection fee on an employer filing a petition.”10 Almost identical language is used in the Act to refer to the Training Fee.11 Such similarity could be read to mean that the restrictions of the Training Fee also apply to the Fraud Fee. However, 20 C.F.R. 655 is explicit in saying that the employee cannot pay the Training Fee; no such statement is made regarding the Fraud Fee. The regulation regarding the Training Fee, 20 C.F.R. 655, predates the creation of the Fraud Fee, which may explain this discrepancy. Nonetheless, the language referring to the Fraud Fee is not explicitly prohibitive and an employer may decide to be reimbursed by the employee. If an employer chooses to do so, any deductions from the employee’s salary to pay for this fee must meet the DOL requirements for unauthorized deductions. 12
Before any payments are made by the employee or deductions are taken from his/her pay to reimburse the employer, it must be determined if such deduction is permitted and if so, whether or not it is authorized or unauthorized. Once these preliminary determinations are made, appropriate steps must be taken to ensure that the DOL’s requirements are met. As a practical matter, there are very few circumstances in which the prospective employee could legally be made to pay for the costs associated with the H-1b process without an employer risking non-compliance and causing significant record keeping.
2011 MY LITTLE 1996 OPEL TIGRA
jayleno
08-31 09:40 AM
GCFISH,
whaddoyammean by 90% of us? Speak for yourself. Who did the statistic anyway. stuckinretro is right to some extent atleast from my experience.
whaddoyammean by 90% of us? Speak for yourself. Who did the statistic anyway. stuckinretro is right to some extent atleast from my experience.
more...
freeskier89
02-05 05:19 PM
My vote goes to lightgrid! ... oh wait, its not up there. :(
devamanohar
10-07 12:33 PM
My daughter is now 22 years old and filed I-485 on behalf of me in the year 2007. That time she was only 19 years.
Now she is planning to get married before getting a green card. Her bride-groom is H-1 visa and not applied for labor. Will her I- 485 application be cancelled?.
I am also porting to eb-2 in the next three months. I am hoping to get green card may be after Sept 2011.
Suppose she gets married before the green card what will happend to her case. Please I need advise.
Now she is planning to get married before getting a green card. Her bride-groom is H-1 visa and not applied for labor. Will her I- 485 application be cancelled?.
I am also porting to eb-2 in the next three months. I am hoping to get green card may be after Sept 2011.
Suppose she gets married before the green card what will happend to her case. Please I need advise.
more...
kk_123
09-25 03:07 PM
hi,
my brother is also seeing the same status for his case. he too really getting confused.
if you get your GC , pls update it.so it will help others too.
my brother is also seeing the same status for his case. he too really getting confused.
if you get your GC , pls update it.so it will help others too.
2010 Used Opel Tigra 1996
Jaime
02-03 04:17 PM
Either the account of Jaime has been hacked or there is some problem with the forum showing the number of your post count incorrectly.
Thanks, this is me, I am asr. member, I just have been away for a while due to work
Thanks, this is me, I am asr. member, I just have been away for a while due to work
more...
tanu_75
07-29 02:53 PM
The calculations have a huge margin or error there because it is based on 2 wrongs. USCIS data is not fully accurate and tracker data is small. 2 wrongs do not make a right. It is better to trust information directly from people talking to Department of State and USCIS. Lawyers know better as they do this everyday for many years.
Interesting so you're willing to acccept information from your lawyer who you think gets his information from USCIS but not willing to trust USCIS's information which we use here that USCIS makes itself available freely now. Hmm, not saying don't trust your lawyer but you would be surprised how inefficient some of the lawyers can be. None of them predicted the movement for the past two months which was pretty much spot on based on analysis by Q and others on the thread. I would rather trust analysis which I can see and test myself rather than take the word of a lawyer just because he's a lawyer.
Interesting so you're willing to acccept information from your lawyer who you think gets his information from USCIS but not willing to trust USCIS's information which we use here that USCIS makes itself available freely now. Hmm, not saying don't trust your lawyer but you would be surprised how inefficient some of the lawyers can be. None of them predicted the movement for the past two months which was pretty much spot on based on analysis by Q and others on the thread. I would rather trust analysis which I can see and test myself rather than take the word of a lawyer just because he's a lawyer.
hair Used Opel Tigra 1996 View more
ubetman
08-07 10:00 PM
Thanks milind for your information...But mine is concurrent filing of both 140/485 application. when concurrent is says in USCIS, the application to be sent where the permanent job is offered which is mentioned in labor and I-140Thatswhy I am little confused...
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=c31c5cdc2c463110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fe529c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
current location state or permanent job offered state for concurrent filing of forms 140/485.. Any suggestions...thanks in advance
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=c31c5cdc2c463110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fe529c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
current location state or permanent job offered state for concurrent filing of forms 140/485.. Any suggestions...thanks in advance
more...
vroapp
02-22 10:26 AM
1--> you should qualify for a J1 as 140 is filed by your Husband's employer; better check with an attorney.
2--> HRR applies and hence you have to get a waiver to file 485 after completion of your Residency.
3--> Once your status changes to J1; HRR applies.
5--> depends on the specialty.
2--> HRR applies and hence you have to get a waiver to file 485 after completion of your Residency.
3--> Once your status changes to J1; HRR applies.
5--> depends on the specialty.
hot Used Opel Tigra 1996
ilikekilo
07-02 08:48 AM
Hi,
I just got married not long ago.
I'm planning to apply I-485 this july.
My question:
Should she change her name prior to applying I-485 or she can do it after we applying I-485.
How easy it�ll be to change last name while I-140 and I-485 pending?
Anyone in the same boat?
Thanks in advance.
maccaid
i would not hcange until ur done with ur gc....its a pain...wait if u can wait
I just got married not long ago.
I'm planning to apply I-485 this july.
My question:
Should she change her name prior to applying I-485 or she can do it after we applying I-485.
How easy it�ll be to change last name while I-140 and I-485 pending?
Anyone in the same boat?
Thanks in advance.
maccaid
i would not hcange until ur done with ur gc....its a pain...wait if u can wait
more...
house Used Opel Tigra 1996
uma001
05-17 03:02 PM
How much time is it taking to get PR. Is it 3 years?
tattoo Uzywany Opel Tigra 1996
ItIsNotFunny
09-22 03:06 PM
Please post how many people you called!
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
more...
pictures Used Opel Tigra 1996
studmvr
12-20 01:31 PM
Colbert, and Jon shows has a lot of auidences....
Let's get them to know our hardships.
Let's get them to know our hardships.
dresses Used Opel Tigra 1996
cheg
07-13 04:24 AM
this forum is amazing. people are helping each other and trying to make things seem a bit brighter. good luck to everyone!:)
more...
makeup Used Opel Tigra 1996
qplearn
08-23 07:04 PM
I am wondering why it is that nobody knows whether a bill will be introduced in Sept. The house and senate have their timetables set long in advance.
Also, if it goes beyond Nov, and the Dems win, they might forget all about us; they care far more for the illegals, unfortunately.:(
We must try to get this passed before the elections in Nov.
qplearn
Its bound to happen. Everyone thinks others will do it, and they dont care(dont want to make any efforts) even though they really want GCs from their inside. Howver we will still find some people who care for this cause and will join the group. so its worth trying.
thanks again for at least trying.
Also, if it goes beyond Nov, and the Dems win, they might forget all about us; they care far more for the illegals, unfortunately.:(
We must try to get this passed before the elections in Nov.
qplearn
Its bound to happen. Everyone thinks others will do it, and they dont care(dont want to make any efforts) even though they really want GCs from their inside. Howver we will still find some people who care for this cause and will join the group. so its worth trying.
thanks again for at least trying.
girlfriend Used Opel Tigra 1996 View more
purgan
09-14 08:26 PM
Its coming around to that time of the year again... an article on the (ultimately unsuccessful) effort to raise the H-1B/EB cap last year. This refers to the infamous S. 1932 bill
Immigration restrictionists argument at the time, was "we should not be doing immigration in this bill". So when should it be done- in the CIR Bill. Well, CIR has come and gone by, and still there is no relief to the H-1B/EB blackout. Will these people support the SKIL Bill after Nov? I don't think so. So what will be their excuse this time? Let's wait till next year for comprehensive reform again:)
What these airheads don't realize is that they're only strengthening momentum for CIR by opposing SKIL, Bill Gates and the big tech lobbies, healthcare lobbies, universities, Chamber of Comemrce, and other business groups such as NAM are going to add tremendouly to the strength of the H-1B/EB reform version of CIR.
Sometimes i just feel that CIR should pass big time and 15-20 million illegals be legalized, so these folks are 'immigration-desensitized". It will happen under a Democratic House, an even more Democratic Leaning Senate and a President determined to do something in his penultimate year in office. Watch out for 07!
========
Budget bill would boost green cards
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 31, 2005
The Senate's budget package includes provisions that would make available hundreds of thousands of green cards for new permanent legal immigrants, in what is shaping up as the next congressional fight over immigration.
The bill's measures would "recapture" 90,000 unused employment-based immigration visas and would exempt family members from counting toward the cap, which is set at 140,000 per year.
Based on past trends, exempting family members would mean an additional 150,000 permanent legal immigrants annually. About 1 million people become legal immigrants each year.
The change is part of the deficit-reducing budget reconciliation bill, which is on the Senate floor today and includes billions of dollars in cuts in Medicaid and other social spending and allows for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
"We should never be doing immigration policy inside this kind of bill," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, adding that he will vote against the bill if it makes it to the House.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, which was faced with a deficit-reduction target, chose to meet it in part by selling to employers the 90,000 unused immigration visas and by raising the fee on employment-based visas by $500 each.
The panel also voted to allow 30,000 more workers per year under the H-1B temporary-visa program.
The measure is supported by universities, hospitals, technology companies and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which say there is a shortage of qualified workers.
"These are workers who already have been certified by the Department of Labor for positions U.S. workers could not be found, or who are internationally recognized for research and other achievements," the Chamber of Commerce said in a letter of support.
The chamber also said many of these workers are in the country and that the Senate bill just streamlines their pursuit of green cards.
Deborah Meyers, senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, said the changes make sense because the current system doesn't accommodate the need for high-skilled workers and would help reduce a backlog in applications from India and China, where those now being accepted applied at least four years ago.
But critics say the money raised -- about $120 million a year -- does not compensate for the damage to Americans seeking jobs.
The Coalition for the Future American Worker, made up of groups that back stricter immigration limits, will begin running a newspaper ad lobbying Congress this week to oppose the changes.
The bill first must clear the Senate and then go to a House-Senate conference committee, and some House members said they will try to ensure the provision isn't included in any final bill.
"We don't expect there to be any immigration provisions in reconciliation. This is not the time or place for controversial immigration provisions," said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican.
Mr. Smith said party leaders will have a difficult enough time passing the budget bill without adding immigration to the list of issues covered.
"We're going to need every Republican we can get to pass it," he said.
The House budget bill does not raise immigration levels. Instead, the House Judiciary Committee met its budget-cutting goal by increasing the fee for L-1 visas, another temporary-worker program, by $1,500.
The Senate debate on legal immigration comes even as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, announced last week that the Senate would take up broad immigration reform early next year.
The overall bill is expected to tackle legal and illegal immigration, border security and interior immigration enforcement.
Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Mr. Frist, said he supports the legal immigration increases but considers them "a temporary stopgap measure."
"Recapturing old, unused visas will only help satisfy some of the current excess demand for highly skilled workers, but at some point even this pool of recaptured visas will be exhausted," Mrs. Call said.
The bill also increases H-1B visas from 65,000 to 95,000 in fiscal 2006 and raises the fee employers pay by $500.
Immigration restrictionists argument at the time, was "we should not be doing immigration in this bill". So when should it be done- in the CIR Bill. Well, CIR has come and gone by, and still there is no relief to the H-1B/EB blackout. Will these people support the SKIL Bill after Nov? I don't think so. So what will be their excuse this time? Let's wait till next year for comprehensive reform again:)
What these airheads don't realize is that they're only strengthening momentum for CIR by opposing SKIL, Bill Gates and the big tech lobbies, healthcare lobbies, universities, Chamber of Comemrce, and other business groups such as NAM are going to add tremendouly to the strength of the H-1B/EB reform version of CIR.
Sometimes i just feel that CIR should pass big time and 15-20 million illegals be legalized, so these folks are 'immigration-desensitized". It will happen under a Democratic House, an even more Democratic Leaning Senate and a President determined to do something in his penultimate year in office. Watch out for 07!
========
Budget bill would boost green cards
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 31, 2005
The Senate's budget package includes provisions that would make available hundreds of thousands of green cards for new permanent legal immigrants, in what is shaping up as the next congressional fight over immigration.
The bill's measures would "recapture" 90,000 unused employment-based immigration visas and would exempt family members from counting toward the cap, which is set at 140,000 per year.
Based on past trends, exempting family members would mean an additional 150,000 permanent legal immigrants annually. About 1 million people become legal immigrants each year.
The change is part of the deficit-reducing budget reconciliation bill, which is on the Senate floor today and includes billions of dollars in cuts in Medicaid and other social spending and allows for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
"We should never be doing immigration policy inside this kind of bill," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, adding that he will vote against the bill if it makes it to the House.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, which was faced with a deficit-reduction target, chose to meet it in part by selling to employers the 90,000 unused immigration visas and by raising the fee on employment-based visas by $500 each.
The panel also voted to allow 30,000 more workers per year under the H-1B temporary-visa program.
The measure is supported by universities, hospitals, technology companies and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which say there is a shortage of qualified workers.
"These are workers who already have been certified by the Department of Labor for positions U.S. workers could not be found, or who are internationally recognized for research and other achievements," the Chamber of Commerce said in a letter of support.
The chamber also said many of these workers are in the country and that the Senate bill just streamlines their pursuit of green cards.
Deborah Meyers, senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, said the changes make sense because the current system doesn't accommodate the need for high-skilled workers and would help reduce a backlog in applications from India and China, where those now being accepted applied at least four years ago.
But critics say the money raised -- about $120 million a year -- does not compensate for the damage to Americans seeking jobs.
The Coalition for the Future American Worker, made up of groups that back stricter immigration limits, will begin running a newspaper ad lobbying Congress this week to oppose the changes.
The bill first must clear the Senate and then go to a House-Senate conference committee, and some House members said they will try to ensure the provision isn't included in any final bill.
"We don't expect there to be any immigration provisions in reconciliation. This is not the time or place for controversial immigration provisions," said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican.
Mr. Smith said party leaders will have a difficult enough time passing the budget bill without adding immigration to the list of issues covered.
"We're going to need every Republican we can get to pass it," he said.
The House budget bill does not raise immigration levels. Instead, the House Judiciary Committee met its budget-cutting goal by increasing the fee for L-1 visas, another temporary-worker program, by $1,500.
The Senate debate on legal immigration comes even as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, announced last week that the Senate would take up broad immigration reform early next year.
The overall bill is expected to tackle legal and illegal immigration, border security and interior immigration enforcement.
Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Mr. Frist, said he supports the legal immigration increases but considers them "a temporary stopgap measure."
"Recapturing old, unused visas will only help satisfy some of the current excess demand for highly skilled workers, but at some point even this pool of recaptured visas will be exhausted," Mrs. Call said.
The bill also increases H-1B visas from 65,000 to 95,000 in fiscal 2006 and raises the fee employers pay by $500.
hairstyles Used Opel Tigra 1996 petrol
Britsabroad
March 6th, 2004, 08:50 AM
Reminds me of a Nautilus shell cut in half - great shot. Id also be very interested to see what you are able to get with your tripod from different angles
fromnaija
03-02 11:47 AM
The irony in the current schizophrenic EB immigration policy is that, it is ironically the more talented, qualified and marketable and entrepreneural talent that is more likely to look at US immigration policy and call it a day. It is conversely the mediocre talent that would be inclined to "stick it out" and deal with all the crap.
Hmm, something surely to ponder for this country.
Are you personally "sticking it out"? Does that make you a mediocre talent? Something to ponder about your post.
Hmm, something surely to ponder for this country.
Are you personally "sticking it out"? Does that make you a mediocre talent? Something to ponder about your post.
485_se_dukhi
09-22 10:51 AM
Very good article!!
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-inline_21edi.ART.State.Edition1.427fa5a.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-inline_21edi.ART.State.Edition1.427fa5a.html
No comments:
Post a Comment