PDA

View Full Version : Online petetion to eliminate per country limits


vik352
07-01-2008, 05:03 PM
Hi,

I feel that per country quota for EB green cards is ridiculous. A skilled worker from India and China has to wait for GC 10 years, whereas a person from ROW gets it in few years/months. I wish I had known all the delays/pains in GC processing before I started my career here. We should start an online petetion/a law suit to end this disciminatory quota and address it to President/all the congressman/all the media.

Simple questions in the online petition/law suit:

1) Do you think it is fair for a person from India/China to wait for 10 years whereas a person from other country gets it in few years?
2) When there is no per country quota in H1B visas, do you think it is fair to have it in EB visas?
3) Do you think it is fair to have the same quota for India/China compared to a small country?
4) Everyone is aware of the legal immigration problems here, atlease try to make it same for everyone.

Most of us are Ivy League or good college graduates and work in good companies. We can mention our names, school and company information in the petition. All those who don't agree with me, please dont respond.

Can IV core come up with an online petition?

sprajulu
07-01-2008, 05:09 PM
We all should request politely to end the specific reservations.

sprajulu
07-01-2008, 05:11 PM
We all should request politely to end this country specific reservations.

sunny1000
07-01-2008, 05:13 PM
There is a phone call campaign going on right now to call certain members of congress to pass H.R.5921, H.R.5882 and H.R.6039 which recaptures unused GC visa numbers, eliminates the per-country quota and exempt STEM grads from the GC count. Please participate and call if you have not already and campaign with your friends/family to enlist more people (including U.S citizen colleagues of yours) to call.

As per the IV lobbyists, the online petitions and fax campaigns don't work.

abracadabra102
07-01-2008, 05:18 PM
It is "petition". Thank you.

immique
07-01-2008, 05:22 PM
online petition is a very good idea. it is bound to gain increased attention as we make our views clear. having country quotas/limits in EB system does not make any sense. if not addressed quickly the people from retrogressed countries have to wait 15-20 years before they can ever see their green card while applicants from other countries get their green cards in a few months.

mpadapa
07-01-2008, 05:31 PM
Online petition is a great idea. But what will it accomplish?? Ultimately all those questions have to addressed in the form of a bill and that needs to be passed in the Congress. Is it a coincidence, we already have a bill HR5921 addressing those questions raised by OP All we need to do is channel our energy to make this bill along with the other Rep. Lofgren bills a success.

IV is already raising all those questions mentioned in the petition with the lawmakers. So what is new in this petition?

vik352
07-01-2008, 05:35 PM
We already participated in the phone campaign. What else we can do in helping the Lofgren bills?
With an online petition and > 1000 signatures, we can mail the copies to media/congressman/President.

mpadapa
07-01-2008, 05:53 PM
Call U'r own lawmaker and request them to support the Lofgren bills. Talk to their leg. aide who handles immigration and appraise them about the bills. Believe me there are quite a few lawmaker offices who aren't aware of the Lofgren bills. If constituents call and request the lawmakers to support, then they will have to look into these bills. And more importantly you have to do a follow up call and find out the position of the lawmaker on the 3 bills.
Find your lawmaker by keying in U'r address or zip code at http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

1000 signatures representing a problem which impacts close to a million people isn't enough. Admin fix campaign had around 5000 letters and it wasn't enough to create any big impact. If we are having a campaign with atleast 100K signatures, then Yes I am signing in on this campaign.


We already participated in the phone campaign. What else we can do in helping the Lofgren bills?
With an online petition and > 1000 signatures, we can mail the copies to media/congressman/President.

ajay
07-01-2008, 05:59 PM
I completely support this idea.

vik352
07-01-2008, 07:12 PM
We already called the local lawmakers. This online petition can have two columns, one for people who are suffering because of this per country quota and other for people who support the idea (Friends/relatives/coworkers). We can start the petition and we may generate 100K signatures.
mpadapa: We will let you have the 1000001th signature:)

rajeshalex
07-01-2008, 09:19 PM
I strongly support this idea. And may be we can become petition with max number of persons signing this/ set record. That way it might get more popularity

santb1975
07-01-2008, 10:42 PM
We have been there and done that. If someone can get results through an online petition please be my guest and take the lead on the initiative. I will gladly wait to be 1000002'nd person signing the petition.

moonrah
07-01-2008, 11:32 PM
Online petition is a great idea. But what will it accomplish?? Ultimately all those questions have to addressed in the form of a bill and that needs to be passed in the Congress. Is it a coincidence, we already have a bill HR5921 addressing those questions raised by OP All we need to do is channel our energy to make this bill along with the other Rep. Lofgren bills a success.

IV is already raising all those questions mentioned in the petition with the lawmakers. So what is new in this petition?

Even after thousands of calls, what if they don't pass the bill? I am not pessimistic but I want to have this pass desparately. Lets think about all the possibilities and have solutions or atleast plan for all of those. Just think about this, if someone files a lawsuit on us, we will be sweating and running here and there even though we know we are gonna win. lawsuit will make them think, make them spend money. Trust me nobody wants to go through that husstle. And if we win, they have no way but do something about per country quota limit whether congress passes the bill or not. On the downside, if we loose, they can worsen the situation for us in which case they have to face anger from business community and during election season, goverment wouldn't like to do that.

All I am saying is if we have a case we should pursue it. Otherwise there is no point of fighting loosing battle.

vik352
07-02-2008, 12:35 AM
I talked to my Professor where I did my masters and he agreed to sign the online petition. He is one of top researchers in his field. Imagine if we can get signatures from such great . Professors, outstanding Scientists, CEO's and Directors of big companies, Journalists (like the one who wrote nice article in Washington post about legal immigration) and probably Bill Gates. This would create great attention for our cause. They are lots of people out there who support legal immigration and its time to bring them together and show it to the world in a petition.


If anyone thinks this is a good idea, can you just leave a message saying that you support it. At least we know how many people are interested in this forum.

bskrishna
07-02-2008, 02:30 AM
i support

sunny1000
07-02-2008, 03:07 AM
I talked to my Professor where I did my masters and he agreed to sign the online petition. He is one of top researchers in his field. Imagine if we can get signatures from such great . Professors, outstanding Scientists, CEO's and Directors of big companies, Journalists (like the one who wrote nice article in Washington post about legal immigration) and probably Bill Gates. This would create great attention for our cause. They are lots of people out there who support legal immigration and its time to bring them together and show it to the world in a petition.


If anyone thinks this is a good idea, can you just leave a message saying that you support it. At least we know how many people are interested in this forum.

I will gladly sign this petition as well.

Can you please ask your professor to call Rep.Lamar Smith to voice his support for the Lofgren bills? That would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

jetflyer
07-02-2008, 10:31 AM
IV core may or may not support this because it is different path then what IV core is working since long.
And Yes online petitions takes more to make impact
but it doesn't hurt to try
So I am with you .....Support!

GCapplicant
07-02-2008, 12:32 PM
Let's try this.

arunmohan
07-02-2008, 01:37 PM
I will give my full support. Even I will ask my all colleague and my boss to sign it.

sam_hoosier
07-02-2008, 01:51 PM
I support it.

moonrah
07-02-2008, 01:54 PM
IV core has not put this priority, that must be some good reasons behind that. It will help other communities to know the reasons, so that efforts are not diversified and all can work toward one single efforts. IV core please?

12samanta
07-02-2008, 04:56 PM
Guys, Do not waste time in debating on the forum. If someone creates the petition then i will support and atleast send it to all my friends asking them to sign the petition. Lets do it.

Dakota Newfie
07-02-2008, 08:50 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!

amsgc
07-02-2008, 10:36 PM
Regarding your argument on fairness:

On the contrary, under the current system immigrants from all nations do not have an equal opportunity to apply for a green card. Immigrants from the retrogressed countries are at an unfair disadvantage.

It is easy to see: A guy from ROW and a guy from India both are equally qualified engineers who have a EB2 PD of Jan 2008. The guy from ROW can apply to adjust status now, but the guy from India cannot apply until five years from now. That doesn't tell me that both immigrants have an equal opportunity.

Both immigrants would have had an equal opportunity if both could apply for GC at the same time. Once you have entered the country, have been gainfully employed, and your immigrant petition has been approved, how does it matter whether you came from India, china or Timbuktu? Your employer needs you for your skills, not your place of birth. Do you resolve your day to day office problems with your birth certificate pasted to your forehead?

Regarding your argument on diversity:

You need to understand that the country cap (set up 50 years ago) was NOT set up to give all countries an equal shot at sending EB immigrants to the US. The cap was based and an already existing xenophobic tendency (formally expressed way back in 1924) and the desire to retain the cultural and racial character of the US of '65. They would do fine with only handful of you if you didn't eat, drink, talk, walk and look like them.

Now, you need to understand another important point - The world has changed by leaps and bounds in the last fifty years, all made possible by advances in technology and a conscientious effort by governments to educate their people. As a result there are highly skilled people all over the world, who bring their own unique character and experience to the work place. And things have changed dramatically in the US too. Among other things, the US has become more accommodating to people of different cultural identities. Economically, the US is in need of more high skilled people than ever before. This is an irreversible trend, where the US of today is more interested in who you are and what you bring to the table than what you look like. If a few thousand Indians or Chinese are given the green card, based on their SKLLS, it will not alter the racial and cultural character of 300000000 Americans (that's 300 followed by six zeros). Rather it will only make it richer.

Usually politicians work in reactionary mode – they will espouse an idea once it is obvious that they can’t do without it. The fact that discussion to remove country caps in EB has come up in the congress means that the American people have already written it off as an absurd idea.

The law will change, whether you like it or not.

Read here and get yourself some education:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Services_Act_of_1965


Regarding the agenda:

The agenda of this organization is pretty darn obvious if you care to go through the home page. The idea is to get as close as possible to a system of immigration that appropriately addresses the needs of the US economy and is fair to both Peter and Paul. A system which gives out a green card in a timely fashion, based on skills, job requirements, and the time when the process was started. We need to advocate a change because the current system says to Paul "screw you" and rewards Peter.





I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!

trueguy
07-02-2008, 11:13 PM
I support online petition idea and can get more than 50 friends to sign it.

Lets start it as soon as possible so it can have an positive impact on those three pending bills that will be presented to Congress this summer.

Thanks.

moonrah
07-02-2008, 11:23 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!

Whatever you are saying is true for Family based categories. Employement category is defined to have skilled immigrants to help US businesses, that is why it is called employment based category. Let me explain you what you are saying. You are saying that I will ask compnay A to wait for five years to give promotion to person X, because quotas for his country are not available, and until he gets his green card he can not get promotion, instead give promotion to person Y which is less qualified but can get green card next month since his country has quotas available. Now does it make sense for company A to give promotion to less qualified person just because person X can not get his green card? Company won't do that and will end up sponsoring another qualified person. Or let me explain you in different way. If certain company has need for specific skill for long term and provided that there are not enough citizens to do that job, in this case company has to sponsor an immigrant, but since the requirement is for long term, company doesn't want him to be on immigrant visa for long term because sponsoring immigrant visa means money and more liability. In this case, even though company has much better match from a country whose immigrant visa are not available for many years, company might end up taking immigrant who is less qualified for the job. And company might say that, we can not take you since you won't be able to get green card for many years. If company does that then it would be an discrimination, but company doesn't have any choice.

Initially, it would have been good idea to have country limits because nobody was anticipating this kind of backlogs. But in current situation it doesn't make sense to keep it like that way. Goverment understands it, but they don't want to do anything because this has become political issue because of groups which represent illegal immigrants. With time goverment and companies have to be practicle and change policies or laws. This has been happening and it should happen, particularly when it doesn't make sense. For goverment diversity is important but for company getting job done is more important. And primary purpose of EB category is to get things done.

nixstor
07-02-2008, 11:50 PM
I support online petition idea and can get more than 50 friends to sign it.

Lets start it as soon as possible so it can have an positive impact on those three pending bills that will be presented to Congress this summer.

Thanks.

If web faxes to the representatives offices have not made an impact, How will a petition on a third party website will make an impact?

I don't mean to dampen any one's enthusiasm here but we have been clearly the best ways to make an impact on a law maker's decision are

(1) Go to their offices and meet their legislative assistant/ aide's
(2) Call them.

If you haven't called Rep Smith's office, call now. If you did encourage your friends from San Antonio / Austin area to do so.

immique
07-03-2008, 02:42 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!

how can you argue that quota system in EB categories is fair when there is no quota system in H1 visas? do you really think it is fair that a person from retrogressed country wait for 7-10 years in the same category or even a higher EB category when a similar person in other countries see their application cleared in a few months. just imagine yourself being in the less favorable/retrogressed category. EB system is based on qualifications and not the country of Origin. I don't have any issue regarding diversity. diversity is good but I don't think penalizing qualified individuals from a few countries just based on the country of Origin bodes well for the future of immigration especially when US is trying to attract high skilled immigrants.

paskal
07-03-2008, 03:41 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!



iv supports a package of measures that includes the recapture and STEM exemptions, not removal of country quotas in isolation. the idea is not to redistribute pain (though frankly country quotas give disproportionate pain to some- for what? being born "wrong'") but to end retrogression by simultaneously increasing numbers available and ending country quotas.

if you want to think about "fair" and "monopolies", i urge you to think of the current monopoly. i am an EB2 in health care- every ROW person with me, waltzes to current GCs and mine is many years away. i cannot change anything about the way i work for years...does my career have the same value as one from ROW? i did not apply for the job as an indian and i was not given a job as one. i had some qualifications that counted....why then are they suddenly subservient to my place of birth?

Dakota Newfie
07-03-2008, 07:22 AM
...that the system is severely backlogged and needs repair but to say it is unfair to limit the number of immigrants from one country does not make sense. Removing the per country limit would allow one or two countries to dominate the EB system because their high populations allow them to produce more skilled labor. So removing the per country limit would remove the "bias" off these countries and move it to the ones with lower populations; so, in essence the discrimination would be reversed? Maybe a point-based system that incorporates a per country score would be better?

paskal
07-03-2008, 10:51 AM
...that the system is severely backlogged and needs repair but to say it is unfair to limit the number of immigrants from one country does not make sense. Removing the per country limit would allow one or two countries to dominate the EB system because their high populations allow them to produce more skilled labor. So removing the per country limit would remove the "bias" off these countries and move it to the ones with lower populations; so, in essence the discrimination would be reversed? Maybe a point-based system that incorporates a per country score would be better?

i think it's an interesting discussion, but what would you say to the argument that if immigration artificially inflates the numbers of small countries beyond their real populations and ends up penalizing larger countries. in other words it creates and artificial distribution favoring certain parts of the world...is that really the goal? is is good? s it fair? it's a monopoly in the reverse way- excess opportunity for an individual from certain countries.
when the quotas were originally made, they had exactly that idea- and the motive was explicitly racist. times have changed. so should the antiquated laws.

psam
07-03-2008, 11:11 AM
2) When there is no per country quota in H1B visas, do you think it is fair to have it in EB visas?



There is no reason to mention H1B in this context. Its not going to help GC seekers or H1B seekers.

Abhinaym
07-03-2008, 11:26 AM
...that the system is severely backlogged and needs repair but to say it is unfair to limit the number of immigrants from one country does not make sense. Removing the per country limit would allow one or two countries to dominate the EB system because their high populations allow them to produce more skilled labor. So removing the per country limit would remove the "bias" off these countries and move it to the ones with lower populations; so, in essence the discrimination would be reversed? Maybe a point-based system that incorporates a per country score would be better?

Hey DN, look this whole point about "countries to dominate the EB system" is totally frivolous. Please try to understand 2 points (I say please again):

1. Cards don't go out to countries, they are given to individuals, whose background, education, motivation, employability, circumstances are completely different from another individual from the same country. From your profile it seems you are Canadian, does it make any sense to say that you shouldn't be given a GC, because a whole bunch of Canandians got a GC in the past? Why should there be a relation between country and employability here? (After all the GC is for employability in the long run)

2. Just because another of my countrymen got a GC doesn't make any difference to me or my employer! They don't subsidize me, they don't feed me, they don't pay my bills, they don't work for my employer/clients. Again, my employer wants to keep me employed beyond my H1 date, how and why should it matter to the employer/client/economy that heaps of Indians got their GCs?

Buddy, I'm different, I'm a very unique individual - so are you, and so is everyone in this forum. I bring a diversity in skillset which is why my employer hires me, not because of my ethnicity or country of origin.

Basically that's what should matter to the economy, a diversity in skillset not in race or national origin. And who's best at deciding that other than the employer?! Besides, the EB GC system is designed to strengthen the workforce and not about doing favors to countries, right?

Abhinaym
07-03-2008, 12:16 PM
Taking a benefit of one group, then distribute the pain across the board is not fair to ROW applicants. This is not the solution. You cannot say to us ROW people that we don't understand the fustration of waiting for our GC as well.
I think its ridiculous that some family takes up to 4 GC from the EB GC pool, why don't you make a petition to state that only EB GC goes to EB primary applicant while your family takes up family based GC. Unless your wife and kids are hired to work as the rest of us, them taking EB based GC is unfair to the rest of us who don't have a family.

The point is to not 'distribute pain', it is to reduce the pain of a group.

Again, even though the benefits may go to one 'group', let me tell you that it is not a formal group and just as all ROW applicants are not one group, non-ROW applicants too are individuals and IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ONE INDIVIDUAL HOW MUCH OTHERS GOT BENEFITED.

So your point of saying that one group is benefited is irrelevant, because GCs aren't given to groups and only to individual applicants.

Your other point is absolutely right! Family should not be counted, and I'm in 100% agreement with that!

Dakota Newfie
07-03-2008, 12:27 PM
I admit, it seems discriminatory to say you can't get your GC now because you're from this country or that country but these "high volume" countries have created the current back log through their sheer numbers and sometimes multiple applications, not the system. The system is fair to ALL and for some group to say that it isn't fair because all of that group isn't getting what they want is unjust to the rest of us. I knew I would be pounced upon when I submitted my original post and it only proves my point of personal agendas; sometimes I wonder what the "I" in "IV" really stands for? Don't be so arrogant as to believe that your higher education should give you more rights than others - that doesn't fly with me! I am frustrated with this forum because of this arrogance and I may not visit too much longer!

I do have one question for all of you who are in favor of eliminating the per country limit; do you support an eventual road to citizenship for the large group of people who dominate the "other side" of immigration? If you don't, some may think you hipocritical to want the rules changed for yourselves!

acecupid
07-03-2008, 12:47 PM
Taking a benefit of one group, then distribute the pain across the board is not fair to ROW applicants. This is not the solution. You cannot say to us ROW people that we don't understand the fustration of waiting for our GC as well.
I think its ridiculous that some family takes up to 4 GC from the EB GC pool, why don't you make a petition to state that only EB GC goes to EB primary applicant while your family takes up family based GC. Unless your wife and kids are hired to work as the rest of us, them taking EB based GC is unfair to the rest of us who don't have a family.If you petition to eliminate country EB GC only to the primary applicant, then fine....i am all for it, but if you add your wife and kids to it, i say no.

If you call it re-distribution of pain, I would call it sharing the pain. I think its high time ROW candidates felt the pain which we non-ROW have suffered for a long time. You are objecting just because you are on the better side and wish to continue with the better bargain. If you think about it as a EB group in general, then its absolutely ridiculous that there should be country limits for EB category GC when there is no limits on H1B which is the primary route for most EB category GC applications. I completely agree with you on the family quotient of your arguement, they should not get the GC numbers which is meant only for primary EB applicant. Not that I want families to suffer, but the family GC numbers for EB applicants should not count towards GC number cap.

Abhinaym
07-03-2008, 01:01 PM
I admit, it seems discriminatory to say you can't get your GC now because you're from this country or that country but these "high volume" countries have created the current back log through their sheer numbers and sometimes multiple applications, not the system. The system is fair to ALL and for some group to say that it isn't fair because all of that group isn't getting what they want is unjust to the rest of us. I knew I would be pounced upon when I submitted my original post and it only proves my point of personal agendas; sometimes I wonder what the "I" in "IV" really stands for? Don't be so arrogant as to believe that your higher education should give you more rights than others - that doesn't fly with me! I am frustrated with this forum because of this arrogance and I may not visit too much longer!

I do have one question for all of you who are in favor of eliminating the per country limit; do you support an eventual road to citizenship for the large group of people who dominate the "other side" of immigration? If you don't, some may think you hipocritical to want the rules changed for yourselves!

Ridiculous, nobody ever mentioned education here. Did any one here mention higher education at all?

You want to get ahead of me in the line just because where I was born even if we're equally qualified, and you're calling me arrogant???

Yes, our countries are 'high volume', how does it matter? Who are you blaming for what? Now what, you want to be commended and applauded for your countries' low population? :D LOL!

Why is it so unjust to wait your turn?

BS! IV has done so much for all immigrants and not just Indians. You should get your facts straight here. Besides this is a thread created for this purpose, there are plenty of threads which help you, if you ignore all of those and make your opinions on this you're being obnoxious. Also, the number of people in support of this petition is a tiny proportion of IV'ers. So stop stereotyping man, it is showing.

You say that we applicants are to blame for our countries' populations? I.e. we're responsible for circumstances that happened before our birth? Could you get any more ridiculous please?

I hope you begin to understand who is sounding arrogant here.

acecupid
07-03-2008, 01:17 PM
Don't be ignorant, i am still bloody waiting for mine and counting!!!! :mad:
Problem is not country quota, its the ones with families!!! ><

I'm not being ignorant, if you are waiting, then there are many from EB non-ROW who have been waiting longer than you. How can you be so arrogant about waiting ? You choose to overlook facts about what EB category is all about. Its definitely not about diversity!

Dakota Newfie
07-03-2008, 01:20 PM
As I said, I expected to be "attacked" when I submitted my posts which only proves my point since the attacks are only coming from a "select group"; remember, the more you criticize my opions, the more you prove I'm right!

That being said, since I am not a member of this "select group", Administrator please remove me from the list of IMMIGRATION VOICE members. Thank you and good bye.

nixstor
07-03-2008, 01:26 PM
I admit, it seems discriminatory to say you can't get your GC now because you're from this country or that country but these "high volume" countries have created the current back log through their sheer numbers and sometimes multiple applications, not the system. The system is fair to ALL and for some group to say that it isn't fair because all of that group isn't getting what they want is unjust to the rest of us. I knew I would be pounced upon when I submitted my original post and it only proves my point of personal agendas; sometimes I wonder what the "I" in "IV" really stands for? Don't be so arrogant as to believe that your higher education should give you more rights than others - that doesn't fly with me! I am frustrated with this forum because of this arrogance and I may not visit too much longer!

I do have one question for all of you who are in favor of eliminating the per country limit; do you support an eventual road to citizenship for the large group of people who dominate the "other side" of immigration? If you don't, some may think you hipocritical to want the rules changed for yourselves!

Sheer number of applications from the high volume countries has created the backlog?? Are you saying/wishing that these people should not have come in the first place to avoid the backlog?? My friend, backlogs did not happen completely because of the sheer number of applications and gaming. Backlogs happened primarily because of wasted visa numbers and issues surrounding it. If there was no visa number wastage the priority dates would have been around 2-3 years behind as opposed to 7 or 8 years. There are gamers in every system. If a system does not work for people as it is supposed to, gamers do so to get out of the system. Not that IV condones such things but it happens in any system, when the system is broken.

The I in IV definitely does not stand for me only or for any one only. I along with V only makes sense. I by itself does not get IV any where.

So removing the per country limit would remove the "bias" off these countries and move it to the ones with lower populations; so, in essence the discrimination would be reversed?

On one hand you are saying that there is a bias towards lower population countries now and you are ok with it, just because you happen to benefit from it. Is that what you mean?

If retrogressed countries are asking for 75% of the numbers reserved to them rather than having one line for all, You have a good point in saying that the bias is shifting towards retrogressed countries. There is no such provision like that. The provision creates one line depending on when you entered the line. You enter the line ahead, you get it first.

So keeping the limits intact is NOT a bias to you? You can't have it both ways. What do you think is a solution? The point system you referred to came with the same 10% limit on the retrogressed countries. What difference does it make to a retrogressed person with 96 out of 100 points, but still needs to wait for 4 years, while some one from Krakozhia walks away in 6 months with 60 points. B T W , you also said that higher education deserves more does not fly with you. I am not sure how you want points to be assigned, other than education and experience. Don't let the fear and protectionist thought take over the logical and rational thought.

The "other side" of immigration is an entirely different topic. Their issues and our issues, their path to the end line and ours are entirely different. We can't simply compare apples and oranges and call people hypocrites. That said, I personally support it and feel that it will happen at some point depending on the majority in both houses and one party will suffer for the decisions it made. As a by stander, I sympathize with the situation the "other side" has been in. I have a full plate to work on.

bskrishna
07-03-2008, 01:31 PM
There have been cases of folks using L1 A Visa. Big outsourcing companies (US & Indian- Does not matter) routinely file for L1 A (intra company transferee - Managerial) when the person is clearly not performing managerial job. Once on L1 A, folks can file for EB1 and get a GC very soon as it is mostly current. I have seen cases in the past like this. I do not know the status now, as DOL is coming down heavily with audits on PERM applicants. This is one area where only deserving people need to be awarded. This post is not to blame anyone, but people do use this Grey area I suppose to their benefit.

acecupid
07-03-2008, 01:36 PM
Would you agree that wives and kids should not be included in the EB GC quota?

If you read my earlier response, you would not be asking me this question. Just to repeat myself, I completely agree with you that wives and kids should not be included to the EB GC quota!

nixstor
07-03-2008, 01:38 PM
There have been cases of folks using L1 A Visa. Big outsourcing companies (US & Indian- Does not matter) routinely file for L1 A (intra company transferee - Managerial) when the person is clearly not performing managerial job. Once on L1 A, folks can file for EB1 and get a GC very soon as it is mostly current. I have seen cases in the past like this. I do not know the status now, as DOL is coming down heavily with audits on PERM applicants. This is one area where only deserving people need to be awarded. This post is not to blame anyone, but people do use this Grey area I suppose to their benefit.

AFAIK, this does not work for people who are already in the US. One has to work in their native or different county to be eligible for the EB1 managerial position here. Some one might have sneaked away this way at some time. But this is definitely not happening on a large scale as EB1 is current for all countries for quite some time. If a lot of folks are getting away, EB1 cannot be current for long time.

moonrah
07-03-2008, 01:46 PM
Don't be ignorant, i am still bloody waiting for mine and counting!!!! :mad:
Problem is not country quota, its the ones with families!!! ><

I remember there was a proposal to give one Green Card per family to eliminate the retrogression for EB categories. I don't know what happen to that. It was like one year ago or so.

acecupid
07-03-2008, 01:50 PM
I remember there was a proposal to give one Green Card per family to eliminate the retrogression for EB categories. I don't know what happen to that. It was like one year ago or so.

Thats a wonderful idea. Amen to that!

bskrishna
07-03-2008, 02:32 PM
AFAIK, this does not work for people who are already in the US. One has to work in their native or different county to be eligible for the EB1 managerial position here. Some one might have sneaked away this way at some time. But this is definitely not happening on a large scale as EB1 is current for all countries for quite some time. If a lot of folks are getting away, EB1 cannot be current for long time.

Agree that there are not many. The companies that do them, typically do not sponsor for GC that often (comparing the H,L nos to their GC nos).

paskal
07-03-2008, 02:54 PM
the discussion on such heated topics can still be in civil tones.
frankly personal attacks and strong language are not going to get anyone's point across any better. try keeping a cool approach and write well reasoned thoughtful posts. also don't forget, in everything, there is ususally something to the other point of view- however much we disagree on something. lets try this refreshing new approach...maybe we will find there is actually common ground...;)

paskal
07-03-2008, 02:56 PM
AFAIK, this does not work for people who are already in the US. One has to work in their native or different county to be eligible for the EB1 managerial position here. Some one might have sneaked away this way at some time. But this is definitely not happening on a large scale as EB1 is current for all countries for quite some time. If a lot of folks are getting away, EB1 cannot be current for long time.

this does happen- for people in the US already. larger companies find it convenient to simply send the employee out for exactly 365 days and then transfer them back. and Voila! you are in the front of the line!
all legal...but one of the various problems that cause the system to be clogged.

nixstor
07-03-2008, 03:26 PM
this does happen- for people in the US already. larger companies find it convenient to simply send the employee out for asactly 365 days and then transfer them back. and Viola! you are in the front of the line!
all legal...but one of the various problems that cause the system to be clogged.

I am not debating it whether it can happen at all or not, whether its right or wrong. I should have worded it better in my previous post. It can happen, but not many who are already in the US do this. If it were equally rampant like the labor substitution, EB1 cannot be current for long time. While some one can go this route, they are paying a significant amount of Salary (possibly Spouse's salary as well), Family upheaval for an year and many other things as a premium. Not all people have the chance to do so and can afford to do so, if they have a chance. We are not seeing any clogs in EB1. Are we?

perm
07-03-2008, 03:44 PM
where's the petetion, where do we sign?

paskal
07-03-2008, 04:51 PM
I did not read in detail this debate ..but I can say that many qualified and experienced people will not agree for the above ..esp if they have kids who go to school. for e.g. ..for me to do the above is not possible at all.
at the maximum, youngsters will do this once ..to get some American experience.
just imagine what the kid has to go through for such cases ..do schooling here for 4 years ..do schooling in India (find a school )..then the kid has to learn several languages, new system etc etc ..then comeback here and start school..almost impossible
and I think many sensible people will not do the above ..relocating to their own country or to go to a country (like canada) is much much better in these cases.



nixstor,

they have considerably raised the bar for EB1 A and EB1 b to discourage people applying, but I suspect that if you run a trend, EB1C is on the rise. I think you might be surprised about how often it does actually happen.
I half expect EB1 to be retrogressed at some point. There is a big backlog of pending !40's in EB1- NSC is running over a year behind.

albertpinto:
it's a whole of 365 days. people do it, i have seen it happen. what makes you think a big multinational has to send you to india? you could go to a european office, your family could stay behind, you could be sent to an english speaking country, kids could be young enough...there are a million ways to deal with this inconveneience when the rewards are clear. even now, people in consulting travel all the time, they are hardly home, so what's the huge difference in being across the pond (you get to travel back, your family gets to travel there)? sure, not for everyone, but when possible, this loophole is very much in use.

pappu
07-03-2008, 05:38 PM
There have been cases of folks using L1 A Visa. Big outsourcing companies (US & Indian- Does not matter) routinely file for L1 A (intra company transferee - Managerial) when the person is clearly not performing managerial job. Once on L1 A, folks can file for EB1 and get a GC very soon as it is mostly current. I have seen cases in the past like this. I do not know the status now, as DOL is coming down heavily with audits on PERM applicants. This is one area where only deserving people need to be awarded. This post is not to blame anyone, but people do use this Grey area I suppose to their benefit.

If this is true, then everyone who thinks this is unfair must write letters to USCIS, Ombudsman, WH etc

USCIS does not read our forums and will not take action from a forum post.

If you see something wrong, and you feel strongly about it, Do not let it happen.

In hindsight I think we should have done it for labor substitution too.

nixstor
07-03-2008, 06:25 PM
nixstor,

they have considerably raised the bar for EB1 A and EB1 b to discourage people applying, but I suspect that if you run a trend, EB1C is on the rise. I think you might be surprised about how often it does actually happen.
I half expect EB1 to be retrogressed at some point. There is a big backlog of pending !40's in EB1- NSC is running over a year behind.

albertpinto:
it's a whole of 365 days. people do it, i have seen it happen. what makes you think a big multinational has to send you to india? you could go to a european office, your family could stay behind, you could be sent to an english speaking country, kids could be young enough...there are a million ways to deal with this inconveneience when the rewards are clear. even now, people in consulting travel all the time, they are hardly home, so what's the huge difference in being across the pond (you get to travel back, your family gets to travel there)? sure, not for everyone, but when possible, this loophole is very much in use.

Paskal,

It is possible that EB1 C might become unavailable, because you might be looking at it more closer than I am. But I still find it hard to believe that an MNC will just create a phony Managerial position for every Joe Bloggs, an abuse similar to Labor substitution and satellite offices in states where labor processing was fast etc. Lets say an MNC really promoted some one to a position that qualifies for EB1, moves him out and moves him back, it is still by the book and can't be compared to labor sub, which were sold for money. Labor sub by itself is NO crime irrespective of what we think. The rampant abuse of it caused the demise. Same rule applies to some one who goes out and comes back as its all by the rules and no abuse is involved. In responding to the OP, My intention was to say that MNC's do not go to such an extent of creating a Managerial position that do not exist or have an employee do the same work in the name of managerial position. Some companies might have abused it in such way on few occasions, but thats definitely NOT a practice as rampant as Labor Sub's once was. If that were true and as easy as depicted, A lot of people & companies would have done it, by now. We don't need to teach the gamers. They are a step ahead in getting things done, if there is a way.

trueguy
07-03-2008, 06:50 PM
Everyone,
Can we stick to the subject please?

Where is the online petition and how soon can we collect all the signature so they can help in getting those three bills approved.

Thanks

paskal
07-03-2008, 10:13 PM
If this is true, then everyone who thinks this is unfair must write letters to USCIS, Ombudsman, WH etc

USCIS does not read our forums and will not take action from a forum post.

If you see something wrong, and you feel strongly about it, Do not let it happen.

In hindsight I think we should have done it for labor substitution too.


nixstor, you right of course. i was not comparing it to labor sub, just pointing out that there are a myriad of loopholes. the EB1C is hardly meant for employees already here- sending them out and bringing them back is legal- yet its very much a loophole being exploited. in many cases - again just my anecdotal observation, the position is not just a fake manager- yet the position is not the real "concept" of a multinational manager either. i have seen attorneys in big corporate firms getting EB1c by this method.

i do believe though that over time USCIS has become aware of this activity. A little skimming of EB1c posts on reveals a great deal of new scrutiny for the EB1c 1-140 petitions. The same is true when an entirely new employee is being brought in. they are asking a lot of questions on company structures, hierarchy and individual roles and responsibilities....

SunnySurya
07-03-2008, 10:28 PM
May I suggest the following reservations:
20% Other Backward Countries (OBC)
15% Scheduled Countries (SC)
15% Scheduled Territories (ST)
5% Kins of the armed forces
Remaining 55% for Highly Skilled people

srkamath
07-03-2008, 11:18 PM
Country-wise caps are clearly not a sensible way to retain the best talent in the world in the US. The purpose of the EB visa program is to get the best contributors to the US economy mostly when and where Americans are not available. The EB immigration system is not a socialist entitlement program for prospective immigrants from China, India or the ROW. The program must be fair to the US, fairness (or lack thereof) to all qualified prospective immigrants is a consequence not the intent of the law.

The sad truth is that, no matter how sensible that argument is - a large section of people will not understand that or will choose to distort it out of fears such as losing their perceived entitlement - simply put many will simply refuse to buy it. Therefore, if we wish to pursue this issue we need a middle ground proposal.

Here's an amendment that strikes middle ground ......

For a given year, to estimate the demand, first calculate from the last three years data, the average number (percentage) of visas charged to each country under EB1, 2 & 3. For any country that was charged more than an average of 7% of the visas in the last three years, limit the visa allocation in the first quarter to 7%. In the second and third quarters, limit the allocation to the actual average percentage for the last three years. In the last quarter, remove all such country-wise limits to ensure maximum usage.

I'm no legislative expert, but after reading the text of the law at http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe (chapter 1 - Selection System) , it is my understanding that the law already permits something very close what i have proposed. It is up to the executive branch to change their policy here - this seems like a classic case for an Executive Order.
Any thoughts / comments?

NKR
07-04-2008, 12:09 AM
May I suggest the following reservations:
20% Other Backward Countries (OBC)
15% Scheduled Countries (SC)
15% Scheduled Territories (ST)
5% Kins of the armed forces
Remaining 55% for Highly Skilled people

Notfunny dude..

GCScrewed
07-04-2008, 12:06 PM
Paskal,

It is possible that EB1 C might become unavailable, because you might be looking at it more closer than I am. But I still find it hard to believe that an MNC will just create a phony Managerial position for every Joe Bloggs, an abuse similar to Labor substitution and satellite offices in states where labor processing was fast etc. Lets say an MNC really promoted some one to a position that qualifies for EB1, moves him out and moves him back, it is still by the book and can't be compared to labor sub, which were sold for money. Labor sub by itself is NO crime irrespective of what we think. The rampant abuse of it caused the demise. Same rule applies to some one who goes out and comes back as its all by the rules and no abuse is involved. In responding to the OP, My intention was to say that MNC's do not go to such an extent of creating a Managerial position that do not exist or have an employee do the same work in the name of managerial position. Some companies might have abused it in such way on few occasions, but thats definitely NOT a practice as rampant as Labor Sub's once was. If that were true and as easy as depicted, A lot of people & companies would have done it, by now. We don't need to teach the gamers. They are a step ahead in getting things done, if there is a way.


Given the severe backlog of EB2 and EB3, some people will find ways to outsmart the system so that they can get the greencards sooner. If those loopholes are not plugged now, it will make a mess just as Labor Sub once did.

I think we should pursue a goal that benefit everyone in the backlogs... not just a specific types, say I, C vs ROW; EB1 vs. EB2 vs. EB3; STEM vs. Non-STEM; Schedule A vs. Non-Schedule A; Healthcare vs. Non-Healthcare; IT vs. Non-IT. The only cause which will get everyone on the same page and therefore is worth pursuing is to recapture unused #s so that all people in the backlogs can go through the pipeline quickly. Of course, all the government agencies, esp. USCIS, must be held accountable for processing cases in a consistent and orderly way. This may be another goal IV should pursue. Just my opinion.

srkamath
07-04-2008, 04:16 PM
Given the severe backlog of EB2 and EB3, some people will find ways to outsmart the system so that they can get the greencards sooner. If those loopholes are not plugged now, it will make a mess just as Labor Sub once did.


Yes, i'm not supportive of those that seek to exploit loopholes, I understand their frustration, i feel the same frustration. If we know for certain that someone is deliberately, possibly illegally abusing the system we should report it to either DOL or USCIS. Look what the exploiters have done to the PERM system.......