countdrak
11-01 02:58 PM
Thank you all for your responses.
I am working directly for the company, this is not a desi consultant but a legit desi owned business.
The difference in wage is about $7 an hour and total of around $13k a year. It doesn't seem like they give a crap about "breaking the rules". At the same time I don't want to be a party to that and be out of status later on.
My question is suppose I quit and go back to my H4 and in this economy dont get a job --- Can I get a job in 6 months and transfer my h1 or will I have to apply for a NEW H1 through the quota again?
Guessing how stingy these guys are , I don't think they have the time and the inclination to go out and cancel my h1. At the same time I want to get this done amicably so as to hold my job for 6-8 months. From some of the posts I have seen that the DOL doesnt really respond and required tremendous amount of proof and companies can pay a small fine and go on with their lives.
I am working directly for the company, this is not a desi consultant but a legit desi owned business.
The difference in wage is about $7 an hour and total of around $13k a year. It doesn't seem like they give a crap about "breaking the rules". At the same time I don't want to be a party to that and be out of status later on.
My question is suppose I quit and go back to my H4 and in this economy dont get a job --- Can I get a job in 6 months and transfer my h1 or will I have to apply for a NEW H1 through the quota again?
Guessing how stingy these guys are , I don't think they have the time and the inclination to go out and cancel my h1. At the same time I want to get this done amicably so as to hold my job for 6-8 months. From some of the posts I have seen that the DOL doesnt really respond and required tremendous amount of proof and companies can pay a small fine and go on with their lives.
wallpaper Emo - Emo Sad, Emo Sad Love
andycool
04-21 02:59 PM
Sad story indeed.
But the website yesterday indicated that they had collected the funds to take care of moving Mahesh and his stuff to India, and that's why they stopped the collections.
So what are you guys contributing to then?
They are accepting Funds Now ....
Thanks
But the website yesterday indicated that they had collected the funds to take care of moving Mahesh and his stuff to India, and that's why they stopped the collections.
So what are you guys contributing to then?
They are accepting Funds Now ....
Thanks
EB3June03
06-15 04:55 PM
I got an email from my lawyer who indicates the RFE is related to my medical missing from the 483 package we sent. I am pretty positive we sent it, but seems like USCIS has some way to firing a RFE.
Anyway, my lawyer is asking me that getting a new medical done would be better as that is quick and more pratical. Don't know if that might be true.
Any ideas for those who got RFE for medical?
Anyway, my lawyer is asking me that getting a new medical done would be better as that is quick and more pratical. Don't know if that might be true.
Any ideas for those who got RFE for medical?
2011 emo-love Sademo love
chvs2000@yahoo.com
08-17 12:23 AM
We got a rejection notice for my wife's 485 & 765 application. The notice said
============
"Based on the information you provided, your priority date could not be established. Please resubmit you application with the proper documentation to the address listed on the bottom of this notice
The following documents may be provided:
Your original Form I-130(petition for alien relative) if you are filing concurrently ; or
Your original Form I-360 if you are filing concurrently; or
A copy of your Form I-797 if the petition has already beed filed/approved; or
Other evidence that an immigration visa petition has been filed/approved on your behalf.
==============
My PD is Mar 2005, EB2 and my 485 is pending since aug 2007.
We have included following documentation in the package
1) Forms 485 ,765 , G 325 A
2) passport copy
3) Birth certificate and affidavits
4) My 485 receipt notice
5) My I 140 approval
6) Letter from the employer saying that i am still employed with them
7) Pay stubs
Does anyone know what have we missed? I dont think I -130 and I -360 are relevant for this category.
============
"Based on the information you provided, your priority date could not be established. Please resubmit you application with the proper documentation to the address listed on the bottom of this notice
The following documents may be provided:
Your original Form I-130(petition for alien relative) if you are filing concurrently ; or
Your original Form I-360 if you are filing concurrently; or
A copy of your Form I-797 if the petition has already beed filed/approved; or
Other evidence that an immigration visa petition has been filed/approved on your behalf.
==============
My PD is Mar 2005, EB2 and my 485 is pending since aug 2007.
We have included following documentation in the package
1) Forms 485 ,765 , G 325 A
2) passport copy
3) Birth certificate and affidavits
4) My 485 receipt notice
5) My I 140 approval
6) Letter from the employer saying that i am still employed with them
7) Pay stubs
Does anyone know what have we missed? I dont think I -130 and I -360 are relevant for this category.
more...
prout02
07-30 12:26 PM
I have read in this forum frequent questions about this - legality/enforceability of noncompete clause. Here's a recent court decision from Kansas. It talks about physician practices. No idea if it is applicable to other professions. But the four factors cited in the decision seem relevant.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
p7810456
06-18 06:59 PM
Unfortunately I am in a very remote area , as factoryman above mentioned , in montana. factoryman , did this answer your question ...
well.. i guess try your best. the cause here is worth 70 mile trip, if need be. take the trips.. most probably you would need to do only one blood work.. so go for it.
Meanwhile, don't forget to Buckle up and Drive safe :)
well.. i guess try your best. the cause here is worth 70 mile trip, if need be. take the trips.. most probably you would need to do only one blood work.. so go for it.
Meanwhile, don't forget to Buckle up and Drive safe :)
more...
snathan
12-09 10:52 AM
Hi
Is visa recapture part of the this proposed dream act..? If not then it will be of no use to any of the legal workers (most of us on this forum) in the EB row.
Thanks,
Thanks for letting us know...
Is visa recapture part of the this proposed dream act..? If not then it will be of no use to any of the legal workers (most of us on this forum) in the EB row.
Thanks,
Thanks for letting us know...
2010 of Pain and his love poem
kishdam
02-01 01:37 PM
Friends / Gurus,
Your suggestion:
1. Stack back with old attorney
2. Stack back with old attorney, unless I get any RFE (hope not)
3. Change to my attorney even though it is expensive, which is always safe. As adviced by pappu or logiclife.
Hi Shana,
I am going thru same thing, my situation is a bit different. My current company (Company A) is big public company and they sponsored my GC - labor+I140+I485. So the company attorney dont have any responsibility towards me and they rarely talk to me - even when they talk they talk as if I am the enemy.
Now I am planning to use AC21; interviewed at couple places. Have one offer - talking to employer regarding my EAD/AP/485. Their initial reaction is to use EAD and they would renew it. They were not talking about 485. Have another chat with them on Monday but I am confused what to ask. I am leaning towards having my own attorney to answer any RFE's and to renew EAD/AP. I will request the new employer to commit to providing any documents that I may need. Not sure if it works. If it doesnt I may go with their attorney if they agree to take over my 485 (to answer any RFE's) and renew EAD/AP annually.
(note: please see your PM)
Your suggestion:
1. Stack back with old attorney
2. Stack back with old attorney, unless I get any RFE (hope not)
3. Change to my attorney even though it is expensive, which is always safe. As adviced by pappu or logiclife.
Hi Shana,
I am going thru same thing, my situation is a bit different. My current company (Company A) is big public company and they sponsored my GC - labor+I140+I485. So the company attorney dont have any responsibility towards me and they rarely talk to me - even when they talk they talk as if I am the enemy.
Now I am planning to use AC21; interviewed at couple places. Have one offer - talking to employer regarding my EAD/AP/485. Their initial reaction is to use EAD and they would renew it. They were not talking about 485. Have another chat with them on Monday but I am confused what to ask. I am leaning towards having my own attorney to answer any RFE's and to renew EAD/AP. I will request the new employer to commit to providing any documents that I may need. Not sure if it works. If it doesnt I may go with their attorney if they agree to take over my 485 (to answer any RFE's) and renew EAD/AP annually.
(note: please see your PM)
more...
ARUNRAMANATHAN
07-09 11:37 PM
Nixstor
Have no idea where is USCIS ....If me being there would make a difference would be there ...please call me anytime whne you read this msg ...
My number is 703.371.7445 M
Arun
Have no idea where is USCIS ....If me being there would make a difference would be there ...please call me anytime whne you read this msg ...
My number is 703.371.7445 M
Arun
hair wallpaper emo love. sad emo
eb3retro
03-16 01:49 PM
Hello Everyone,
I currently have an employment based I-485 application pending (EB3, India). My application was filed when I was single. Now my spouse is getting ready to file his 140/485concurrently (EB2 NIW, non-retrogressed country). Since I already have a pending 485 application, we do not plan on submitting another 485 application for me when he files his. My understanding is that once he receives his 485 receipt notice, we would just need to inform USCIS that both our 485 applications need to be merged (his being the primary, and mine being the derivative). I just wanted to confirm that this is correct, or if there is anything else that needs to be done.
Please advise.
Thank you.
how abt u update ur profile first.
I currently have an employment based I-485 application pending (EB3, India). My application was filed when I was single. Now my spouse is getting ready to file his 140/485concurrently (EB2 NIW, non-retrogressed country). Since I already have a pending 485 application, we do not plan on submitting another 485 application for me when he files his. My understanding is that once he receives his 485 receipt notice, we would just need to inform USCIS that both our 485 applications need to be merged (his being the primary, and mine being the derivative). I just wanted to confirm that this is correct, or if there is anything else that needs to be done.
Please advise.
Thank you.
how abt u update ur profile first.
more...
singhsa3
07-25 03:36 PM
Before I say any thing further, I want to clarify that I am NOT asking for any action but want to point out to a unique Gandhigiri protest idea proposed by one of our members:
On one of the posts rajmehrotra suggested "Something like a mass blood donation drive will garner empathy and publicity in a positive way." This was seconded by another member Gravitation. Not sure what other people think but I personally liked this idea very much.
So please save this idea for future use if others also recommend it.
On one of the posts rajmehrotra suggested "Something like a mass blood donation drive will garner empathy and publicity in a positive way." This was seconded by another member Gravitation. Not sure what other people think but I personally liked this idea very much.
So please save this idea for future use if others also recommend it.
hot sad emo quotes about love. emo
GCOP
07-21 04:01 PM
Really sorry to know your situation. I really hope that attorney on this forum can come up with some idea. In the meantime, check with your attorney. Best of Luck.
more...
house sad emo quotes and sayings.
unknown123
03-13 11:34 PM
Looks like this is comming for most of us after recent spate of RFEs on I-485 regarding re-submission of medical examination, birth certificate, etc...
Thanks gc_check for the link
Thanks gc_check for the link
tattoo emo love sad quotes.
krithi
02-04 07:03 PM
Hello Gali,
Im also using rahul reddy in houston, but its very tough to find an answer from him, did u had the same problem.
thnx,
krithi
Im also using rahul reddy in houston, but its very tough to find an answer from him, did u had the same problem.
thnx,
krithi
more...
pictures sad emo love layouts - 5792965
eb3retro
05-04 09:07 PM
how is that cheating? If I take a appartment on rent with lease on my name, pay my rent, pay my taxes, work for a US based company, pay my bills?
you did all this except being here and working in the place as mentioned in your LC , am i right???:rolleyes:
you did all this except being here and working in the place as mentioned in your LC , am i right???:rolleyes:
dresses sad emo love wallpaper. Emo Love Wallpapers Phone.
geesee
07-23 04:10 PM
It mentions that in any of the incorrect filing, cases will be rejected...
does that mean I-485 is rejected for good or one cannot apply it again until PD becomes current in future?
does that mean I-485 is rejected for good or one cannot apply it again until PD becomes current in future?
more...
makeup Sad Emo Love Quotes And
paragpujara
10-26 11:30 AM
I am 2nd July filer and have received EAD on 09/06. But so far no updates on AP or FP. I guess there are lot many ppl in the same boat.
girlfriend ARE U A SAD EMO?
kondur_007
04-17 05:49 PM
they will not "do away" with comprehensive..... if it fails this year they will bring it up again next year and next..... there is no room for piecemeal...... if there were.... they would do it after cir failed in 2006, but they didn't..... they could do after cir failed in 2007, but again they didn't...... or they could do piecemeal in 2008, 9 or 10..... the fact they didn't .... it just tells us that we ought to learn something here..... there is nothing called piecemeal & there will never be anything called piecemeal in this leg of immigration reform, other than our own fantasy world.... so get over it...... there is only 1 way to do it.... cir
lets start the undocumented bashing party now......
I would agree with you on this. However, a failed attempt is better than no attempt.
Problem is, politically we (legal immigrants) have no leverage and so only thing we can count on is to piggyback our agenda into CIR; whether we like or not like undocumented is a "secondary issue". Only potential damage that could occur to legal immigration (from CIR) is chocking up the system; and therefore, we have to include that in our efforts else legal immigration will be a history for about a century.
Legislative relief is the only possible relief for EB3 India; else people who are already waiting for almost a decade will have another decade of wait; simply rediculous.
lets start the undocumented bashing party now......
I would agree with you on this. However, a failed attempt is better than no attempt.
Problem is, politically we (legal immigrants) have no leverage and so only thing we can count on is to piggyback our agenda into CIR; whether we like or not like undocumented is a "secondary issue". Only potential damage that could occur to legal immigration (from CIR) is chocking up the system; and therefore, we have to include that in our efforts else legal immigration will be a history for about a century.
Legislative relief is the only possible relief for EB3 India; else people who are already waiting for almost a decade will have another decade of wait; simply rediculous.
hairstyles emo love sayings and quotes.
permfiling
10-04 10:57 PM
I am planning to go to India with my family in december. Please suggest some tourist spots across India.
Not the usual ones like tajmahal or gateway of india etc. Thank you.
Well you have telanganaindia as your ID so you can visit Andhra Pradesh :-)
Not the usual ones like tajmahal or gateway of india etc. Thank you.
Well you have telanganaindia as your ID so you can visit Andhra Pradesh :-)
sertasheep
07-11 11:42 AM
NDTV wants to talk to members from New York from diverse nationalities. She already has one person lined up for a TV shoot today. This must happen today.
Prerequisites:
- Must have participated in flower campaign
- Must be in New York
- Must be from "diverse" nationalities
Details:
Sarah Jacob
Special Correspondent, NDTV.
172 Ludlow St, 3A
New York, NY 10002
646-280-6993
sarah AT ndtv.com
Prerequisites:
- Must have participated in flower campaign
- Must be in New York
- Must be from "diverse" nationalities
Details:
Sarah Jacob
Special Correspondent, NDTV.
172 Ludlow St, 3A
New York, NY 10002
646-280-6993
sarah AT ndtv.com
Blog Feeds
01-09 02:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiRmGKjguS6YFZatJ68_oOm8fwrRZksfK2jlu35PrGlBvdP-qSciXr6R-fBha5UPtbwcWsaF3DJ5AEpFf-fi9PQKVBVCozBOqFmVpx5pgOZtRDCcyvpZM-A_HusMrGpfr-pG6O-BzQ3dc/s320/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiRmGKjguS6YFZatJ68_oOm8fwrRZksfK2jlu35PrGlBvdP-qSciXr6R-fBha5UPtbwcWsaF3DJ5AEpFf-fi9PQKVBVCozBOqFmVpx5pgOZtRDCcyvpZM-A_HusMrGpfr-pG6O-BzQ3dc/s1600-h/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg)By Deborah Notkin, AILA Past President
Unfortunately, that's exactly what the Gutierrez bill is. While there are many excellent provisions on important components of immigration reform, especially family unity and legalization, the employment immigration provisions are overwhelmingly negative and geared to eliminate the employers from having any reasonable input on the specific types of foreign employees that are required in an evolving economy. The overarching provision is the establishment of a "Commission" that would determine U.S. immigration policy (numbers and categories) pertaining to temporary and permanent workers. A commission of seven "experts" would report to both houses of Congress annually the types and number of workers that could enter the U. S. Unless both houses of Congress acted to block them (a rarity in today's world), the Commission's "recommendations" would become the law of the land.
There are a number of reasons why substituting Congress with a commission is a bad idea. First, we don't have the statistical evidence available to make good measurements on an annual basis. Second, government commissions in DC overwhelmingly end up becoming unelected political entities, with their own agendas, often exceeding their original mission. Third, a politicized commission on such a controversial issue would be especially problematic because it would not be accountable directly to voters as are elected representatives. In a debate on the Commission concept that I attended in New York, proponents were struggling to find even a few examples of Beltway government commissions that worked and did not become politicized.
While the Gutierrez bill should be commended for including provisions requiring employers to take responsibility for utilizing ethical recruiters and providing a few exemptions from the employment based quota for certain types of professionals, it generally negates the legitimacy of corporate needs and lacks any concept of the global economy and the international, competitive personnel market.
Most egregious is the idea of bringing in a lesser skilled workforce through a sort of "hiring hall" lottery system that would eliminate employers entirely from the selection process. Foreign workers would be placed in a database and assigned to employers based on some computer's or bureaucrat's idea of a match. It reminds one of the unfortunate migrants who are day workers standing outside waiting to be randomly hired. Here, they can just stand in their own countries being assigned to an employer they may not have chosen if given the choice.
Additional provisions would eliminate the ability of employers to use entry level wages for entry level temporary workers. Forcing employers to pay foreign nationals more than their U.S. worker counterparts is totally absurd. Is this how we think America will benefit from the many foreign nationals who have just graduated from, among other fields, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathmatics, programs? And of course, the unworkable cap on H-1B temporary professional workers in a healthy economy is totally ignored, evidently to be left to the gang of seven commissioners.
It appears that Congressman Gutierrez put his heart and soul into legalization and family unity but left the employment provisions to be drafted by the most anti-employer parties in this debate. Much is borrowed from the Durbin-Grassley proposed H-1B and L-1B provisions and the Economic Policy Institute's piece on immigration, which starts out by labeling all employers using foreign workers as participants in indentured servitude.
I have only highlighted a few of the egregious provisions that promise to sink an otherwise good piece of legislation. And this does not serve anyone who sincerely wants to find a solution to the human tragedy faced by undocumented migrants in the United States.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4566215004987922662?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/01/gutierrez-billa-good-legalization-and.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiRmGKjguS6YFZatJ68_oOm8fwrRZksfK2jlu35PrGlBvdP-qSciXr6R-fBha5UPtbwcWsaF3DJ5AEpFf-fi9PQKVBVCozBOqFmVpx5pgOZtRDCcyvpZM-A_HusMrGpfr-pG6O-BzQ3dc/s320/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiRmGKjguS6YFZatJ68_oOm8fwrRZksfK2jlu35PrGlBvdP-qSciXr6R-fBha5UPtbwcWsaF3DJ5AEpFf-fi9PQKVBVCozBOqFmVpx5pgOZtRDCcyvpZM-A_HusMrGpfr-pG6O-BzQ3dc/s1600-h/2010-01-07+international-business-industry-night.jpg)By Deborah Notkin, AILA Past President
Unfortunately, that's exactly what the Gutierrez bill is. While there are many excellent provisions on important components of immigration reform, especially family unity and legalization, the employment immigration provisions are overwhelmingly negative and geared to eliminate the employers from having any reasonable input on the specific types of foreign employees that are required in an evolving economy. The overarching provision is the establishment of a "Commission" that would determine U.S. immigration policy (numbers and categories) pertaining to temporary and permanent workers. A commission of seven "experts" would report to both houses of Congress annually the types and number of workers that could enter the U. S. Unless both houses of Congress acted to block them (a rarity in today's world), the Commission's "recommendations" would become the law of the land.
There are a number of reasons why substituting Congress with a commission is a bad idea. First, we don't have the statistical evidence available to make good measurements on an annual basis. Second, government commissions in DC overwhelmingly end up becoming unelected political entities, with their own agendas, often exceeding their original mission. Third, a politicized commission on such a controversial issue would be especially problematic because it would not be accountable directly to voters as are elected representatives. In a debate on the Commission concept that I attended in New York, proponents were struggling to find even a few examples of Beltway government commissions that worked and did not become politicized.
While the Gutierrez bill should be commended for including provisions requiring employers to take responsibility for utilizing ethical recruiters and providing a few exemptions from the employment based quota for certain types of professionals, it generally negates the legitimacy of corporate needs and lacks any concept of the global economy and the international, competitive personnel market.
Most egregious is the idea of bringing in a lesser skilled workforce through a sort of "hiring hall" lottery system that would eliminate employers entirely from the selection process. Foreign workers would be placed in a database and assigned to employers based on some computer's or bureaucrat's idea of a match. It reminds one of the unfortunate migrants who are day workers standing outside waiting to be randomly hired. Here, they can just stand in their own countries being assigned to an employer they may not have chosen if given the choice.
Additional provisions would eliminate the ability of employers to use entry level wages for entry level temporary workers. Forcing employers to pay foreign nationals more than their U.S. worker counterparts is totally absurd. Is this how we think America will benefit from the many foreign nationals who have just graduated from, among other fields, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathmatics, programs? And of course, the unworkable cap on H-1B temporary professional workers in a healthy economy is totally ignored, evidently to be left to the gang of seven commissioners.
It appears that Congressman Gutierrez put his heart and soul into legalization and family unity but left the employment provisions to be drafted by the most anti-employer parties in this debate. Much is borrowed from the Durbin-Grassley proposed H-1B and L-1B provisions and the Economic Policy Institute's piece on immigration, which starts out by labeling all employers using foreign workers as participants in indentured servitude.
I have only highlighted a few of the egregious provisions that promise to sink an otherwise good piece of legislation. And this does not serve anyone who sincerely wants to find a solution to the human tragedy faced by undocumented migrants in the United States.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4566215004987922662?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/01/gutierrez-billa-good-legalization-and.html)
No comments:
Post a Comment