ebizash
08-02 02:18 PM
How does one check the comments left along with red and green dots?
wallpaper the first being an
![the war of the worlds poster. [ WAR OF THE WORLDS POSTER ]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uQ_7IScWfAT0FJn78us6FbIIC-D5niEz2Y-ONFIW-bfFApamm1ybCbNVMJhQHlJWArGuOoBbdAPKLkhSlCYYi9FD6in89vhPoX0rS-lXs-angCVMBxFbTYuOOZI0_Igg=s0-d "[ WAR OF THE WORLDS POSTER ]")
sumagiri
07-25 08:40 AM
IMO, both arguments and are valid as far as speculations are concerned. It all depends on perspective. In this thread, we are focusing on statistics and calculations. I my self did lot of calculations. However, objectively looking at Ron's comments, it appears like his concern and underlying message is what if USCIS won't adjudicate enough numbers and wastes visa numbers as it did lot of times. He is basing his prediction on years of experience. With recent pressure on DOS/USCIS to use visa number, I think, they are making an attempt to use up all numbers and that will definitely bring life to our calculations. But what If they do not do that.....and their 'target' is a low number.
Lasantha
12-14 05:35 PM
Well, you are the one who asked me that question. I can't help it if you didn't like my answer.
And if you don't like other views please don't waste your time by responding to them.
As for your last question, if I have anything more to add, I will do that if and when I feel like it. I don't think I need your permission to do that. (At least I think I don't. Correct me if I am wrong though). :cool:
Hasta la vista Baby!
Either you are kidding or wasting everybody's time. This thread is all about "investigating constituionality and effects of "Per country limit" . Nobody is saying, repeat, nobody here is saying that OTHER AGENDAS defined by IV should not be pursued or will not be pursued. Do you have anything to add about "Per country limit?
And if you don't like other views please don't waste your time by responding to them.
As for your last question, if I have anything more to add, I will do that if and when I feel like it. I don't think I need your permission to do that. (At least I think I don't. Correct me if I am wrong though). :cool:
Hasta la vista Baby!
Either you are kidding or wasting everybody's time. This thread is all about "investigating constituionality and effects of "Per country limit" . Nobody is saying, repeat, nobody here is saying that OTHER AGENDAS defined by IV should not be pursued or will not be pursued. Do you have anything to add about "Per country limit?
2011 [ WAR OF THE WORLDS POSTER ]
gc_on_demand
06-15 01:29 PM
I believe in luck in the GC process. Before 2005 PERM process, many folks applied in states where Labor was fast. They were able to get greencards within a couple of years while others were stuck in Labor Backlog centers (http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=67&Itemid=50). Some cleared all hurdles and got stuck in namechecks for years. Until 2007 Namecheck was a big scare. (http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81&Itemid=61)
Many people could not file in July 07 for various reasons. Some people were born in India but were brought up in other country. Even they are stuck. Some people decided to rise in their careers and changed jobs on H1. While they did rise, but lost in the grreencard PD race.
So definitely luck pays its role.
me and some other people may be lucky individually to get PERM and I 140 get clear just before economy collapsed in early 2008. But now we are facing MASS UNLUCK OF INDIA.
Just kidding..
Many people could not file in July 07 for various reasons. Some people were born in India but were brought up in other country. Even they are stuck. Some people decided to rise in their careers and changed jobs on H1. While they did rise, but lost in the grreencard PD race.
So definitely luck pays its role.
me and some other people may be lucky individually to get PERM and I 140 get clear just before economy collapsed in early 2008. But now we are facing MASS UNLUCK OF INDIA.
Just kidding..
more...
nandakumar
05-28 09:47 PM
1. Employment-Based Visa Number Movement and Predictions
Many MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers closely track the U.S. Department of State (DOS) Visa Bulletin each month. The most recent Visa Bulletin chart is always available on MurthyDotCom. Given the importance of the cutoff dates in the Visa Bulletin, attorneys at the Murthy Law Firm are often asked for predictions as to the movement of the cutoff dates. There is no better source for this information than Charles Oppenheim, Chief of Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Division at DOS. Mr. Oppenheim was a guest speaker at a May 20, 2009 American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) meeting, which was attended by most of our attorneys. Mr. Oppenheim�s explanations and visa number / Visa Bulletin expectations for the remainder of FY2009 and for FY2010 are explained below. Readers who are unfamiliar with the Visa Bulletin and the role visa numbers play in the permanent residence (commonly referred to as the �green card�) process should review some of the articles on this important topic that can be found on our website; among them, Priority Dates - How Do They Work?
Historical Background
Mr. Oppenheim discussed the historical background that led to the current unavailability of visa numbers, known as retrogression, for certain employment-based (EB) immigrant visa categories. Retrogression is not something new or unfamiliar in immigration law. Most EB numbers were current from July 2001 through January 2005 due to legislative that provided a temporary solution. This legislation authorized unused visa numbers from previous years to be put back into the system. Those additional numbers, along with the annual allotments, were sufficient to meet the demand until January 2005. Since January 2005, the supply of EB visa numbers has fallen short of the demand.
Current Trends in Visa Usage
Mr. Oppenheim stated that immigrant visa applications at U.S. consulates abroad are down seven percent from FY2008. India will use all the visa numbers that are available to its nationals this fiscal year. This is due, in part, to huge increases in the usage of EB4 and EB5 categories. Applicants from India have used twice the number of visas estimated for FY2009. Mr. Oppenheim stated that, because of the excess demand, further retrogression may occur over the summer months.
Predictions for Movement and Usage of EB Visa Numbers
Employment-Based, First Preference (EB1)
Mr. Oppenheim expects that all EB1 visa numbers will be used before the end of FY2009. This may result in the establishment of a cutoff date for the EB1 categories for India and China, beginning in August or September 2009. Usage in the EB1 worldwide category (listed as "all chargeability areas except those listed") is also higher than expected. This may lead to imposition of a cutoff date toward the end of FY2009.
Mr. Oppenheim explained that a trickling effect of unused visa numbers between EB categories has helped keep EB1 and EB2 categories current in prior years. However, due to the processing of a high number of applications, this trickling effect has already occurred, but is not expected to occur again in FY2009. Mr. Oppenheim attributed this to the hard work of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), as well as that of the DOS, as they have succeeded in processing enough cases to likely use all available visa numbers from all categories for FY2009. He stated that the DOS and the USCIS are supposed to process enough cases to use the annual allotment of visa numbers and not leave any available visas unused and wasted in any fiscal year.
Employment-Based, Second Preference (EB2)
The EB2 category worldwide is also expected to be over-subscribed and will exhaust all allocated visa numbers before the end of FY2009. To date, Mr. Oppenheim estimates that 3,200 EB2 India visa numbers have been used in FY2009. The high usage in the EB1 category has prevented the usual trickle of visas to the EB2 category. Thus, China will experience the same EB2 retrogression as India in July 2009. The EB2 China cutoff date is expected to be set at January 1, 2000.
Employment-Based, Third Preference (EB3)
All EB3 categories are currently unavailable; all available visa numbers have been allocated. No change is expected to occur until the beginning of FY2010.
Employment-Based, Fourth Preference / Certain Religious Workers
There has been an unexpectedly heavy usage of visas in the EB4 categories for certain religious worker in FY2009. A cutoff date thus may be set in August or September 2009. Mr. Oppenheim stated that, if the Certain Religious Workers category becomes unavailable, applicants in the ministers category are not affected.
Visa Numbers for Indian Nationals
Mr. Oppenheim has set the cutoff date for EB2 India at January 1, 2000. According to current estimates, out of the approximately 200,000 I-485 applications currently pending with USCIS, 120,000 of them are chargeable to India, with the cases divided evenly between EB2 and EB3. This means that EB2 and EB3 India applicants count for 60 percent of the I-485 cases currently pending with the USCIS.
FY2010 Predictions by Charles Oppenheim of DOS
Mr. Oppenheim stated that he expects the EB3 worldwide category to have a cutoff date of March 1, 2003, beginning with the October 2009 Visa Bulletin. When asked about the potential cutoff dates for EB3 India, China, and Mexico, Mr. Oppenheim said that it would depend on the demand for these categories over the rest of FY2009.
Mr. Oppenheim estimated that there are currently 25,000 EB2 and EB3 cases from Indian nationals that have been reviewed and are only waiting for visa numbers for final processing. He stated that, due to the dramatic increase in employment-based filings, visa cutoff dates for FY2010 will be much more limited to ensure that there will be a steady supply of visa numbers available throughout the year. This will lead to earlier cutoff dates and may help prevent visa categories from becoming unavailable.
Conclusion
We at the Murthy Law Firm appreciate Mr. Oppenheim's commitment to addressing matters related to visa numbers and the Visa Bulletin. The continued shortage of employment-based visa numbers is a source of great frustration for many and Mr. Oppenheim's predictions do not assuage that feeling. It is better to have an understanding of the reality of the situation, however, than to operate in ignorance or with unrealistic expectations. Once again, the shortage of immigrant visa numbers underscores the need for legislation in this area to increase the numbers, change the counting of the numbers (from one per person to one per family), or to revamp the system entirely.
Many MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers closely track the U.S. Department of State (DOS) Visa Bulletin each month. The most recent Visa Bulletin chart is always available on MurthyDotCom. Given the importance of the cutoff dates in the Visa Bulletin, attorneys at the Murthy Law Firm are often asked for predictions as to the movement of the cutoff dates. There is no better source for this information than Charles Oppenheim, Chief of Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Division at DOS. Mr. Oppenheim was a guest speaker at a May 20, 2009 American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) meeting, which was attended by most of our attorneys. Mr. Oppenheim�s explanations and visa number / Visa Bulletin expectations for the remainder of FY2009 and for FY2010 are explained below. Readers who are unfamiliar with the Visa Bulletin and the role visa numbers play in the permanent residence (commonly referred to as the �green card�) process should review some of the articles on this important topic that can be found on our website; among them, Priority Dates - How Do They Work?
Historical Background
Mr. Oppenheim discussed the historical background that led to the current unavailability of visa numbers, known as retrogression, for certain employment-based (EB) immigrant visa categories. Retrogression is not something new or unfamiliar in immigration law. Most EB numbers were current from July 2001 through January 2005 due to legislative that provided a temporary solution. This legislation authorized unused visa numbers from previous years to be put back into the system. Those additional numbers, along with the annual allotments, were sufficient to meet the demand until January 2005. Since January 2005, the supply of EB visa numbers has fallen short of the demand.
Current Trends in Visa Usage
Mr. Oppenheim stated that immigrant visa applications at U.S. consulates abroad are down seven percent from FY2008. India will use all the visa numbers that are available to its nationals this fiscal year. This is due, in part, to huge increases in the usage of EB4 and EB5 categories. Applicants from India have used twice the number of visas estimated for FY2009. Mr. Oppenheim stated that, because of the excess demand, further retrogression may occur over the summer months.
Predictions for Movement and Usage of EB Visa Numbers
Employment-Based, First Preference (EB1)
Mr. Oppenheim expects that all EB1 visa numbers will be used before the end of FY2009. This may result in the establishment of a cutoff date for the EB1 categories for India and China, beginning in August or September 2009. Usage in the EB1 worldwide category (listed as "all chargeability areas except those listed") is also higher than expected. This may lead to imposition of a cutoff date toward the end of FY2009.
Mr. Oppenheim explained that a trickling effect of unused visa numbers between EB categories has helped keep EB1 and EB2 categories current in prior years. However, due to the processing of a high number of applications, this trickling effect has already occurred, but is not expected to occur again in FY2009. Mr. Oppenheim attributed this to the hard work of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), as well as that of the DOS, as they have succeeded in processing enough cases to likely use all available visa numbers from all categories for FY2009. He stated that the DOS and the USCIS are supposed to process enough cases to use the annual allotment of visa numbers and not leave any available visas unused and wasted in any fiscal year.
Employment-Based, Second Preference (EB2)
The EB2 category worldwide is also expected to be over-subscribed and will exhaust all allocated visa numbers before the end of FY2009. To date, Mr. Oppenheim estimates that 3,200 EB2 India visa numbers have been used in FY2009. The high usage in the EB1 category has prevented the usual trickle of visas to the EB2 category. Thus, China will experience the same EB2 retrogression as India in July 2009. The EB2 China cutoff date is expected to be set at January 1, 2000.
Employment-Based, Third Preference (EB3)
All EB3 categories are currently unavailable; all available visa numbers have been allocated. No change is expected to occur until the beginning of FY2010.
Employment-Based, Fourth Preference / Certain Religious Workers
There has been an unexpectedly heavy usage of visas in the EB4 categories for certain religious worker in FY2009. A cutoff date thus may be set in August or September 2009. Mr. Oppenheim stated that, if the Certain Religious Workers category becomes unavailable, applicants in the ministers category are not affected.
Visa Numbers for Indian Nationals
Mr. Oppenheim has set the cutoff date for EB2 India at January 1, 2000. According to current estimates, out of the approximately 200,000 I-485 applications currently pending with USCIS, 120,000 of them are chargeable to India, with the cases divided evenly between EB2 and EB3. This means that EB2 and EB3 India applicants count for 60 percent of the I-485 cases currently pending with the USCIS.
FY2010 Predictions by Charles Oppenheim of DOS
Mr. Oppenheim stated that he expects the EB3 worldwide category to have a cutoff date of March 1, 2003, beginning with the October 2009 Visa Bulletin. When asked about the potential cutoff dates for EB3 India, China, and Mexico, Mr. Oppenheim said that it would depend on the demand for these categories over the rest of FY2009.
Mr. Oppenheim estimated that there are currently 25,000 EB2 and EB3 cases from Indian nationals that have been reviewed and are only waiting for visa numbers for final processing. He stated that, due to the dramatic increase in employment-based filings, visa cutoff dates for FY2010 will be much more limited to ensure that there will be a steady supply of visa numbers available throughout the year. This will lead to earlier cutoff dates and may help prevent visa categories from becoming unavailable.
Conclusion
We at the Murthy Law Firm appreciate Mr. Oppenheim's commitment to addressing matters related to visa numbers and the Visa Bulletin. The continued shortage of employment-based visa numbers is a source of great frustration for many and Mr. Oppenheim's predictions do not assuage that feeling. It is better to have an understanding of the reality of the situation, however, than to operate in ignorance or with unrealistic expectations. Once again, the shortage of immigrant visa numbers underscores the need for legislation in this area to increase the numbers, change the counting of the numbers (from one per person to one per family), or to revamp the system entirely.
snathan
08-16 06:03 PM
Well i want to see a day when you are held up in secondary for 1.5 hours and then tell us your opinion.
Your post is biased in the sense you trust everything thats coming out from immigration CBP but nothing that comes from Shahrukh. I want to know how did they count 66 mins accurately?
A) was it time from standing in queue to being released?
B_ Was it time of primary + secondary
C) was it time of secondary only?
Did they have stop watch from the time shahrukh entered the building?
Even if he is detained for sixty hours how its matter for GOI. Are they coming to rescue if you or me detained for 2 hrs...why only for SRK..?
Your post is biased in the sense you trust everything thats coming out from immigration CBP but nothing that comes from Shahrukh. I want to know how did they count 66 mins accurately?
A) was it time from standing in queue to being released?
B_ Was it time of primary + secondary
C) was it time of secondary only?
Did they have stop watch from the time shahrukh entered the building?
Even if he is detained for sixty hours how its matter for GOI. Are they coming to rescue if you or me detained for 2 hrs...why only for SRK..?
more...
PlainSpeak
01-13 11:33 AM
Good Things about IV
1. IV Core does not conduct its business in the forum. They learnt this lesson a long time ago.
2. All their work is done in the donor forum and behind the scenes by volunteers
3. If they feel that any idea is worth pursuing they invite that person (with the idea) behind the scenes and pursue that idea
4. All the work is done by IV members themselves because they are helping themselves
5. IV members are investing time and money to do work which impacts a large number of immigrants
6. That is a professional way to do stuff and i admire the way work is done at IV
Concerns of IV
1. IV always states about the lack of will of people to do something for themselves
2. IV always states that people just comment on forum but do not step forward to do stuff
3. IV always says that people do not donate enough and without donation a grassroot organization will not survive
What IV is doing wrong
1. IV talks about a holistic approach whereby the benefit to EB community will trickle down and once EB2 will become current EB3 will get benefit of spillover
2. IV is assuming EB2 will become current but with the number of indians coming to USA and number of indian students who will graduate from MS courses in USA over the next 5 years EB2I will always be backlogged
3. Plus we are not even talking about EB2 ROW and EB3ROW demand which could go up
4. Supporting the DV 55k bill to US educated GC applicants on the whole looks like a great plan. Sure here are 55k and here are about 150 k GC applicants. 150 - 50 IS 100 K. So if the bill passes we reduce the backlog by 50 k. Now i will am one of the person who will be getting a GC because i am US educated but my opposition to this bill is on principle
5. What IV has to realise is that it is not only IV members specifically but it is a whole lot of non IV members who are EB3 who have been a bigger person in this whole immigration retorgression advocacy scheme of things till now.
How let me explain. We have seen EB3 persons from 2002 who are still waiting for GC and who are not getting spill over visas because EB2 is using up all the spill over visas. So do you see any EB3 now complaining about the rule change supported by IV and made by USCIS whereby EB2 gets spill over visas. NO we do not see any EB3 complaining. That is because EB3 as a whole understands that that rule in the past being interpeted in a wrong way and the current way is the correct interpetation. Sure the old method gave EB3 some extra spill over visa benefit but the new interpetation caused EB3 to dry up compleletly. Now that in itself is against the very nature of self preservation by definition, But EB3 went along for the greater good
What IV can do right
1. Now we have this 55K DV Bill. This is something different from the spillover (which is law and cannot be changed). This is one time oppurtunity to alieviate the sufferings of EB group as a whole. So can IV which is supposed to be talking for the whole EB community do the right thing here and ensure (with advocacy they are so good at) that IV's stand is that 55K visa are given to all GC applicant from retrogressed countries based on oldest priority date first irrespective of EB2 and EB3.
2. The concequence of such a move is that long retrogressed EB applicants will get relief (Which is one of the point IV talks about in their charter)
3. Sure Many US educated applicants from EB2 and EB3 will oppose this move because lets face it, this move impacts their getting GC sooner. And if they behave like that they are in the same category as EB2 guys on this forum who do not entertain any idea which will impact their getting GC soon.
What wil happen if IV does the above
1. The DV 55K bill will NEVER pass in congress. This along with the other bills we have seen will bite the dust because no one in the current economic scenario would like to see more immigrants (US educated or not)
2. The DV 55K bill will fail but IV would have achieved what it has failed to do till now. Get the support of EB3 community which they claim to represent.
Synopsis
How how does this work. This is a suggestion for discussion NOT a diktat to IV core to implement. If IV core does not allow discussion on this (and moderate this because frankly some of your existing advocacy group members and volunteers do not know what a discussion is and come out both fists swinging) then that is IV core perogative. they have that right since this is their system and they worked hard for it, and they believe what they say is right.
One question i do have for all the members who have argued with me here. Have you seen all the discussion i have participated under and my other posts. Please do that before yelling that i was a member since 2006 and freeloader and all that. You need to do this because if i am you enemy (Scounderal, Liad weed, Anti Immgrant, Future USA etc) then don't you think to know your enemy is better.
On a funny flip side ...............................
How will this be treated by the current members
Ohh He is a liar, cheat, sounderrl, absurer, voilent person, free loader, smooch, weed, Anti Immgrant, future USA and other unspeakable things
By the way guys i am a She not a He
Adieu/Ciao
1. IV Core does not conduct its business in the forum. They learnt this lesson a long time ago.
2. All their work is done in the donor forum and behind the scenes by volunteers
3. If they feel that any idea is worth pursuing they invite that person (with the idea) behind the scenes and pursue that idea
4. All the work is done by IV members themselves because they are helping themselves
5. IV members are investing time and money to do work which impacts a large number of immigrants
6. That is a professional way to do stuff and i admire the way work is done at IV
Concerns of IV
1. IV always states about the lack of will of people to do something for themselves
2. IV always states that people just comment on forum but do not step forward to do stuff
3. IV always says that people do not donate enough and without donation a grassroot organization will not survive
What IV is doing wrong
1. IV talks about a holistic approach whereby the benefit to EB community will trickle down and once EB2 will become current EB3 will get benefit of spillover
2. IV is assuming EB2 will become current but with the number of indians coming to USA and number of indian students who will graduate from MS courses in USA over the next 5 years EB2I will always be backlogged
3. Plus we are not even talking about EB2 ROW and EB3ROW demand which could go up
4. Supporting the DV 55k bill to US educated GC applicants on the whole looks like a great plan. Sure here are 55k and here are about 150 k GC applicants. 150 - 50 IS 100 K. So if the bill passes we reduce the backlog by 50 k. Now i will am one of the person who will be getting a GC because i am US educated but my opposition to this bill is on principle
5. What IV has to realise is that it is not only IV members specifically but it is a whole lot of non IV members who are EB3 who have been a bigger person in this whole immigration retorgression advocacy scheme of things till now.
How let me explain. We have seen EB3 persons from 2002 who are still waiting for GC and who are not getting spill over visas because EB2 is using up all the spill over visas. So do you see any EB3 now complaining about the rule change supported by IV and made by USCIS whereby EB2 gets spill over visas. NO we do not see any EB3 complaining. That is because EB3 as a whole understands that that rule in the past being interpeted in a wrong way and the current way is the correct interpetation. Sure the old method gave EB3 some extra spill over visa benefit but the new interpetation caused EB3 to dry up compleletly. Now that in itself is against the very nature of self preservation by definition, But EB3 went along for the greater good
What IV can do right
1. Now we have this 55K DV Bill. This is something different from the spillover (which is law and cannot be changed). This is one time oppurtunity to alieviate the sufferings of EB group as a whole. So can IV which is supposed to be talking for the whole EB community do the right thing here and ensure (with advocacy they are so good at) that IV's stand is that 55K visa are given to all GC applicant from retrogressed countries based on oldest priority date first irrespective of EB2 and EB3.
2. The concequence of such a move is that long retrogressed EB applicants will get relief (Which is one of the point IV talks about in their charter)
3. Sure Many US educated applicants from EB2 and EB3 will oppose this move because lets face it, this move impacts their getting GC sooner. And if they behave like that they are in the same category as EB2 guys on this forum who do not entertain any idea which will impact their getting GC soon.
What wil happen if IV does the above
1. The DV 55K bill will NEVER pass in congress. This along with the other bills we have seen will bite the dust because no one in the current economic scenario would like to see more immigrants (US educated or not)
2. The DV 55K bill will fail but IV would have achieved what it has failed to do till now. Get the support of EB3 community which they claim to represent.
Synopsis
How how does this work. This is a suggestion for discussion NOT a diktat to IV core to implement. If IV core does not allow discussion on this (and moderate this because frankly some of your existing advocacy group members and volunteers do not know what a discussion is and come out both fists swinging) then that is IV core perogative. they have that right since this is their system and they worked hard for it, and they believe what they say is right.
One question i do have for all the members who have argued with me here. Have you seen all the discussion i have participated under and my other posts. Please do that before yelling that i was a member since 2006 and freeloader and all that. You need to do this because if i am you enemy (Scounderal, Liad weed, Anti Immgrant, Future USA etc) then don't you think to know your enemy is better.
On a funny flip side ...............................
How will this be treated by the current members
Ohh He is a liar, cheat, sounderrl, absurer, voilent person, free loader, smooch, weed, Anti Immgrant, future USA and other unspeakable things
By the way guys i am a She not a He
Adieu/Ciao
2010 The War of the Worlds poster
sledge_hammer
01-14 02:52 PM
I would argue that Indian consulting biggies saw that they could offer resources to clients at much cheaper rates than offered by American consulting companies. That drove down billing rates for everyone. Also one cannot deny the fact that persons who faked their resumes have contributed to the decline of the quality of talent pool. Don't get me wrong, bad apples existed and thrived in both big and small companies. But the occurences of such misdeed is/was more rampant in body shops. Some examples are the hiring of fresh grads & H4 & other unskilled workers and passing them off as "high skilled resource".
On the other hand if American consulting companies bill high rates to clients, they are at leat still paying decent wages to their employees. So wages stay at moderate levels. But what This whole tiered employement brought into play was that the actual employee was not getting paid too much but the client would still pay quite a bit, maybe not as much as what an American consulting company would bill. The wages of IT professionals went down.
Though this memo is reiterating the same rule again, they want to send a message that body shops are hurting the overall balance of the arrangement they had prior to when desi comapnies setup shops, and that they are keen on eliminating this source of imbalance.
Aren't billing rates the reason why the Indian IT biggies decided to establish business consulting practices? They are offering to bring the same employee that a PWC or Accenture brings in, but at a lower rate to the client.
The quality difference is also not huge (one lisps better in English and another doesn't); there's junk everywhere and these big IT companies also hire people at minimum H-1B wage to improve margins. Lot of times you get what you pay for.
On the other hand if American consulting companies bill high rates to clients, they are at leat still paying decent wages to their employees. So wages stay at moderate levels. But what This whole tiered employement brought into play was that the actual employee was not getting paid too much but the client would still pay quite a bit, maybe not as much as what an American consulting company would bill. The wages of IT professionals went down.
Though this memo is reiterating the same rule again, they want to send a message that body shops are hurting the overall balance of the arrangement they had prior to when desi comapnies setup shops, and that they are keen on eliminating this source of imbalance.
Aren't billing rates the reason why the Indian IT biggies decided to establish business consulting practices? They are offering to bring the same employee that a PWC or Accenture brings in, but at a lower rate to the client.
The quality difference is also not huge (one lisps better in English and another doesn't); there's junk everywhere and these big IT companies also hire people at minimum H-1B wage to improve margins. Lot of times you get what you pay for.
more...
Macaca
02-19 10:42 AM
The following is from CNBC discussion on Friday.
Richard Dekaser, Chief Economist of National City and Stuart Anderson from National Foundation for American Policy were interviewed.
The topic was, is there really a "Skill Shortage or Pay Shortage".
But Richard also said that US Immigration policy needs to be reexamined as it is more oriented towards family reunification which holds them people with less skills. 20-30 yrs ago we had criteria that reqd immigrants to meet a certain educational threshold. And as we are seeing increased need for talent in this country, we need to re-examine that aspect of immi policy and untill then we are gonna see this problem continue."
Richard Dekaser, Chief Economist of National City and Stuart Anderson from National Foundation for American Policy were interviewed.
The topic was, is there really a "Skill Shortage or Pay Shortage".
But Richard also said that US Immigration policy needs to be reexamined as it is more oriented towards family reunification which holds them people with less skills. 20-30 yrs ago we had criteria that reqd immigrants to meet a certain educational threshold. And as we are seeing increased need for talent in this country, we need to re-examine that aspect of immi policy and untill then we are gonna see this problem continue."
hair 2011 The War Of The Worlds
![the war of the worlds poster. [ WAR OF THE WORLDS POSTER ]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_t6r0MswDsmhjnzm5G1Dp92MN-DeBvO4qCCctFkdTyIpDRJ1YKjSDJooe9Y4NJ7j1Dq5byymUdvAxvFCwfaibjxDWW7AQThkYpaCsRABOpFvo1LA8CqCO1PErWxVkV5=s0-d "[ WAR OF THE WORLDS POSTER ]")
soljabhai
12-14 09:45 AM
good post. and good find.
more...
sh2005
02-12 01:32 PM
I am a little unclear on all of the retrogression ect. But can someone please explain how EB3 ROW can be retrogressed and not use all of the visa numbers in a year? That doesnt even make sense to me? Would someone please shed some light?
I have the same question. State dept advances the date just so that the available visas are used up for that category by the end of the fiscal year. If a category is retrogressed, then it can't really be "undersubscribed". Maybe there's more to it than what meets the eye here?
The following was listed at the bottom of the page in the March VB in state dept's website:
The cut-off date movement for March in several Employment categories has been greater than those experienced in recent months. Advancement of the cut-off dates at this time should prevent a situation later in the fiscal year where there are large amounts of numbers available but not enough time to use them. If the expected increase in CIS number use materializes, future cut-off date movements could slow or stop.
In the past, state dept guesstimated the demand for visas and changed the dates accordingly. Now that USCIS has almost everyone's I-485 application (those who were able to file by August 2007), logic would dictate that the state dept calculates these date movements based on feedback from USCIS. But maybe that isn't the case. Does anyone have any insight on this?
I have the same question. State dept advances the date just so that the available visas are used up for that category by the end of the fiscal year. If a category is retrogressed, then it can't really be "undersubscribed". Maybe there's more to it than what meets the eye here?
The following was listed at the bottom of the page in the March VB in state dept's website:
The cut-off date movement for March in several Employment categories has been greater than those experienced in recent months. Advancement of the cut-off dates at this time should prevent a situation later in the fiscal year where there are large amounts of numbers available but not enough time to use them. If the expected increase in CIS number use materializes, future cut-off date movements could slow or stop.
In the past, state dept guesstimated the demand for visas and changed the dates accordingly. Now that USCIS has almost everyone's I-485 application (those who were able to file by August 2007), logic would dictate that the state dept calculates these date movements based on feedback from USCIS. But maybe that isn't the case. Does anyone have any insight on this?
hot quot;War of the Worlds Pulp Poster
_TrueFacts
09-03 11:48 PM
Wow supporting to your own alias comments... And on top of it creating multiple IDs to increase your reputation.
Is this not how you break the system????....This is called Corruption my friend....
I can't help myself Laugh the hell out your stupid behavior of yours....LOL
This is not your YSR's factionist land to be afraid off. Same id or not, you can't pick a hair.
Is this not how you break the system????....This is called Corruption my friend....
I can't help myself Laugh the hell out your stupid behavior of yours....LOL
This is not your YSR's factionist land to be afraid off. Same id or not, you can't pick a hair.
more...
house #39;The War
bayarea07
09-24 07:27 PM
Interesting Analysis from Greg Siskind
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
COULD ELECTION YEAR POLITICS HELP RECAPTURE BILL'S CHANCES?
Yesterday, I wrote about a great bill that was introduced by Senator Menendez that would recapture hundreds of thousands of unused green card numbers, ease the strict per country limits that cause long lines for nationals of some countries and also make it easier to get a waiver when someone is subject to an unlawful presence bar.It also changes the definition of an "immediate relative" to include spouses and children of permanent residents, a provision which would be wildly popular in the Hispanic community since it would cut out the multiyear waits typical in the Family 2A category.
And, oh yeah, there's another bill that people are talking about. The E-Verify program (DHS' much discussed electronic employment verification system) expires in November.
E-Verify is the heart of the entire enforcement agenda for the antis and with Congress set to adjourn in the next week or so and with the distinct possibility that this will put off all legislation until next February or so when the new Congress comes in, getting E-Verify extended in the next few days is a huge deal. A five year extension has passed the House already. The Senate has done nothing yet.
So it was with great interest that I read in yesterday's CQ Today print edition that Senator Menendez is blocking the E-Verify reauthorization bill in order to force consideration of the recapture bill. The article describes Republicans as being infuriated and saying that the recapture bill is a nonstarter and demanding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid bring up a clean E-Verify extension bill.
On the House side, interestingly, the recapture bill was set for a markup in the Judiciary Committee yesterday and Congressman Conyers abruptly adjourned the hearing after a bill barring horse slaughtering was finished yesterday. According to my sources, several members of the Committee were shocked that the markup on the recapture bill didn't happen even though Conyers is a strong backer of the measure. Strange.
So that has me speculating. Is something cooking with the Democratic leadership and the Obama campaign? I think the Democrats smell blood. They know John McCain is in trouble with Hispanic voters based on recent polling data. He's polling anywhere from 10 to 20 points worse than Bush did in 2004 and the Hispanic vote partially explains why Obama finds himself ahead in places like New Mexico and Colorado, states Bush won in 2004. Erosion of support in the Hispanic community could also cost McCain Florida, a state McCain cannot lose if he has any chance of winning the election.
As I reported earlier this week, the McCain campaign and congressional leaders have been clamping down on the anti-immigrant wing of the party. You didn't really think these folks suddenly decided they no longer care about this issue, did you?
What I don't think is a coincidence is the sudden reemergence of immigration in the presidential debate. Suddenly, Obama is blasting McCain on immigration and looking for more and more forums to make his claim that he's pro-immigration and his party's solidly behind him. And he's quick to remind Latinos that John McCain turned his back on them and denounced his own comprehensive immigration reform bill, something that Latino voters are now saying is one their top priorities.
McCain is asking Latino voters for a do-over and claiming that he was only pandering to his base. He was always pro-immigration. It's just politics, you understand.
As you might expect, this message is not selling particularly well. And Democrats know it. They also know that with the economy in free fall, most Americans are not thinking that much about immigration anymore and the issue has dropped back to its historically low rank on issues of concern to the typical voter. So Democrats can be more visibly pro-immigration without having to fear negative consequences.
You probably see where this is going. Provoking a confrontation over immigration with Republicans in the month of October can only have good results. Democrats might actually pass a bill they really want. And they score politically as well.
There's no time to bring up a massive comprehensive immigration reform bill between now and the election. Something smaller and simpler, but what? Oh wait, there's that recapture bill! And there's that must pass E-Verify bill. Now there's a great way to put immigration back on the front pages. Link the two and force Republicans to vote no on a pro-immigration bill likely to have a hugely positive impact in the Hispanic community if they want the E-Verify program to survive. If the Democrats can keep the two bills linked, Republicans who can't stomach more immigration will have to vote no on E-Verify, something they'll have trouble explaining to their constituents. And Republicans who think E-Verify is too important to die, will help deliver a win on the recapture bill.
And in the mean time, McCain will have to openly confront the angry antis in his party. Some of the hardliners in his party will call the provisions easing the unlawful presence waivers to be a "back door amnesty." If McCain goes against them, he'll be seen as a liar by the people in his party who he promised that he would not support an "amnesty" without enforcement first. And if he votes with the antis, it will be all the Hispanic community needs to hear to confirm they're right to support Obama.
October could be interesting.
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
COULD ELECTION YEAR POLITICS HELP RECAPTURE BILL'S CHANCES?
Yesterday, I wrote about a great bill that was introduced by Senator Menendez that would recapture hundreds of thousands of unused green card numbers, ease the strict per country limits that cause long lines for nationals of some countries and also make it easier to get a waiver when someone is subject to an unlawful presence bar.It also changes the definition of an "immediate relative" to include spouses and children of permanent residents, a provision which would be wildly popular in the Hispanic community since it would cut out the multiyear waits typical in the Family 2A category.
And, oh yeah, there's another bill that people are talking about. The E-Verify program (DHS' much discussed electronic employment verification system) expires in November.
E-Verify is the heart of the entire enforcement agenda for the antis and with Congress set to adjourn in the next week or so and with the distinct possibility that this will put off all legislation until next February or so when the new Congress comes in, getting E-Verify extended in the next few days is a huge deal. A five year extension has passed the House already. The Senate has done nothing yet.
So it was with great interest that I read in yesterday's CQ Today print edition that Senator Menendez is blocking the E-Verify reauthorization bill in order to force consideration of the recapture bill. The article describes Republicans as being infuriated and saying that the recapture bill is a nonstarter and demanding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid bring up a clean E-Verify extension bill.
On the House side, interestingly, the recapture bill was set for a markup in the Judiciary Committee yesterday and Congressman Conyers abruptly adjourned the hearing after a bill barring horse slaughtering was finished yesterday. According to my sources, several members of the Committee were shocked that the markup on the recapture bill didn't happen even though Conyers is a strong backer of the measure. Strange.
So that has me speculating. Is something cooking with the Democratic leadership and the Obama campaign? I think the Democrats smell blood. They know John McCain is in trouble with Hispanic voters based on recent polling data. He's polling anywhere from 10 to 20 points worse than Bush did in 2004 and the Hispanic vote partially explains why Obama finds himself ahead in places like New Mexico and Colorado, states Bush won in 2004. Erosion of support in the Hispanic community could also cost McCain Florida, a state McCain cannot lose if he has any chance of winning the election.
As I reported earlier this week, the McCain campaign and congressional leaders have been clamping down on the anti-immigrant wing of the party. You didn't really think these folks suddenly decided they no longer care about this issue, did you?
What I don't think is a coincidence is the sudden reemergence of immigration in the presidential debate. Suddenly, Obama is blasting McCain on immigration and looking for more and more forums to make his claim that he's pro-immigration and his party's solidly behind him. And he's quick to remind Latinos that John McCain turned his back on them and denounced his own comprehensive immigration reform bill, something that Latino voters are now saying is one their top priorities.
McCain is asking Latino voters for a do-over and claiming that he was only pandering to his base. He was always pro-immigration. It's just politics, you understand.
As you might expect, this message is not selling particularly well. And Democrats know it. They also know that with the economy in free fall, most Americans are not thinking that much about immigration anymore and the issue has dropped back to its historically low rank on issues of concern to the typical voter. So Democrats can be more visibly pro-immigration without having to fear negative consequences.
You probably see where this is going. Provoking a confrontation over immigration with Republicans in the month of October can only have good results. Democrats might actually pass a bill they really want. And they score politically as well.
There's no time to bring up a massive comprehensive immigration reform bill between now and the election. Something smaller and simpler, but what? Oh wait, there's that recapture bill! And there's that must pass E-Verify bill. Now there's a great way to put immigration back on the front pages. Link the two and force Republicans to vote no on a pro-immigration bill likely to have a hugely positive impact in the Hispanic community if they want the E-Verify program to survive. If the Democrats can keep the two bills linked, Republicans who can't stomach more immigration will have to vote no on E-Verify, something they'll have trouble explaining to their constituents. And Republicans who think E-Verify is too important to die, will help deliver a win on the recapture bill.
And in the mean time, McCain will have to openly confront the angry antis in his party. Some of the hardliners in his party will call the provisions easing the unlawful presence waivers to be a "back door amnesty." If McCain goes against them, he'll be seen as a liar by the people in his party who he promised that he would not support an "amnesty" without enforcement first. And if he votes with the antis, it will be all the Hispanic community needs to hear to confirm they're right to support Obama.
October could be interesting.
tattoo World Cup / “War of the
helpful_leo
07-28 07:20 PM
Hello there
Thanks for your service.
I needed to ask a very specific question about extending a B-2 visa towards the end of a six month stay for my mom; specifically if she becomes out-of-status during the duration when an EOS application is pending, if the EOS is subsequently denied; and if this (i.e. subsequent denial) voids a multi-year multiple entry visa? I am finding conflicting information on the internet even from USCIS sources about whether or not 212(g) applies when an EOS application is pending.
Thanks for your time.
Thanks for your service.
I needed to ask a very specific question about extending a B-2 visa towards the end of a six month stay for my mom; specifically if she becomes out-of-status during the duration when an EOS application is pending, if the EOS is subsequently denied; and if this (i.e. subsequent denial) voids a multi-year multiple entry visa? I am finding conflicting information on the internet even from USCIS sources about whether or not 212(g) applies when an EOS application is pending.
Thanks for your time.
more...
pictures hair Poster. War of the Worlds
vdlrao
07-21 12:15 AM
I presume, from the July 2007 fiasco DOS might have learnt a lesson of deciding the cut off dates very care fully based on the Aproved labors In a pertucular year from a perticular country with a perticular ctegory. So thats the reason why I am thinking that instead of putting whole EB2 as a current
(It is estimated that there are aout 20k + visas still available for this fiscal year) DOS has put a cut of date for EB2 India/china to Jun 2006. So I could say USCIS is making the cut off dates very carefully by using all the available information like approved labors in a perticular year from a perticular country and in a perticular category.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by delax
Here you go - conversion should not impact this as the number of LC approvals remains the same:
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
---------------------------------------------------------------------
If you see the appoved labors by a fiscal year above, I am assuming that there would be about 10,000 labours for EB2 India every full year except 2005.
In 2005 there may be only about 600 labors for EB2 India.
Based on this it would be
About 5,000 labors for EB2 India from April 2004 to Sep 2004 (About half year),
About 600 labors for EB2 India from Oct 2004 - Sep 2005
About 5,000 labors for EB2 India from Oct 2005 to 1st Jun 2006( About half year)
So total labors may be around 10,600 which needs about 25,000 visas.
So it seems there are about 20k visas availble now.
So they have moved the dates accordingly.
(It is estimated that there are aout 20k + visas still available for this fiscal year) DOS has put a cut of date for EB2 India/china to Jun 2006. So I could say USCIS is making the cut off dates very carefully by using all the available information like approved labors in a perticular year from a perticular country and in a perticular category.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by delax
Here you go - conversion should not impact this as the number of LC approvals remains the same:
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
---------------------------------------------------------------------
If you see the appoved labors by a fiscal year above, I am assuming that there would be about 10,000 labours for EB2 India every full year except 2005.
In 2005 there may be only about 600 labors for EB2 India.
Based on this it would be
About 5,000 labors for EB2 India from April 2004 to Sep 2004 (About half year),
About 600 labors for EB2 India from Oct 2004 - Sep 2005
About 5,000 labors for EB2 India from Oct 2005 to 1st Jun 2006( About half year)
So total labors may be around 10,600 which needs about 25,000 visas.
So it seems there are about 20k visas availble now.
So they have moved the dates accordingly.
dresses Posters World War Poster - 044
nrk
09-17 01:07 PM
I wish your prediction is correct, but do you think the spill over happens from the first quarter,
As per the trend, we are seeing the spill over only in the last quarter from last two years.
Here is what I want to understand.
EB2 ROW is CURRENT except INDIA AND CHINA. EB2 ROW will get 28.6% of 140000.
This means 40040. How they are going to divide these visa between INDIA and CHINA?
This is NOT SpillOver. I know there is 7% rule, but other countries are always Current.
And EB1 is CURRENT and considering Bad economy very few cases will be filed under EB1.
What will happen to those 40040 Visa? If those spillover to EB2 ROW, we may see a large quantity of Visa numbers for EB2.
Considering 50% of each EB1 and EB2 visas consumed by other than INDIA AND CHINA, still we should get aroud 40040 visas this year.If you furher divide 50% between INDIA and CHINA, both will get 20020, Which might be sufficient to cross 2005.
As per the trend, we are seeing the spill over only in the last quarter from last two years.
Here is what I want to understand.
EB2 ROW is CURRENT except INDIA AND CHINA. EB2 ROW will get 28.6% of 140000.
This means 40040. How they are going to divide these visa between INDIA and CHINA?
This is NOT SpillOver. I know there is 7% rule, but other countries are always Current.
And EB1 is CURRENT and considering Bad economy very few cases will be filed under EB1.
What will happen to those 40040 Visa? If those spillover to EB2 ROW, we may see a large quantity of Visa numbers for EB2.
Considering 50% of each EB1 and EB2 visas consumed by other than INDIA AND CHINA, still we should get aroud 40040 visas this year.If you furher divide 50% between INDIA and CHINA, both will get 20020, Which might be sufficient to cross 2005.
more...
makeup The War of the Worlds
Kodi
05-02 01:21 PM
What ethnic cleansing you're talking about? All tamils are not LTTE but all LTTE members are tamils. So you're saying the gov destroying LTTE is wrong because they're tamils and the gov should not try to liberate the country, they should give LTTE what they're asking for and leave it at that. And what's the guarantee that they're going to end it at that.
If there's ethnic cleansing or genocide happening in sri lanka how come tamils lead prosperous lives in other parts of the country?
If there's ethnic cleansing or genocide happening in sri lanka how come tamils lead prosperous lives in other parts of the country?
girlfriend Posters World War Poster - 026
TeddyKoochu
07-22 12:21 PM
Smile - I can prove this is a relevant topic ..how..
Some of these jokers (Quikstar..Amway) have filed GC in EB2 and Eb3 which is illegal, someday states Like Arizona will declare that anyone looking like us should be checked for Amway membership and deported
Profiling is an issue and because of some jokers we all may have to go thru scrutiny.
We should ask USCIS to check all GC applicants name in Amway database and if found USCIS needs to send them to Mexico (because illegal)..
We should write to senators... your opinion on this? ( this way Indiancommunity can be clean and fight for legal hardworking people in immigration policy)
Folks and friends some really nice knowledge sharing is happening here it’s a good discussion. The OP here is a completely fake person and is enjoying at our expense, he has nothing to do with legal immigration just getting pleasure here by instigating us.
Some of these jokers (Quikstar..Amway) have filed GC in EB2 and Eb3 which is illegal, someday states Like Arizona will declare that anyone looking like us should be checked for Amway membership and deported
Profiling is an issue and because of some jokers we all may have to go thru scrutiny.
We should ask USCIS to check all GC applicants name in Amway database and if found USCIS needs to send them to Mexico (because illegal)..
We should write to senators... your opinion on this? ( this way Indiancommunity can be clean and fight for legal hardworking people in immigration policy)
Folks and friends some really nice knowledge sharing is happening here it’s a good discussion. The OP here is a completely fake person and is enjoying at our expense, he has nothing to do with legal immigration just getting pleasure here by instigating us.
hairstyles The War of the Worlds (1953)
BharatPremi
12-14 12:11 PM
"The SC concluded that the statutory discrimination within the class of aliens is permissible."
This could justify difference in say EB1, EB2 and EB3 or F visa, H Visa and L visa. How ever there is no mention that discrimination could be on the basis of sex/race/country of origin etc. IMHO an extension of standard EEO laws should be applied for EB class immigration too.
NB: I am an HR consultant and an expert on EEO laws, I still think that this discussion is worth taking to a top constitutional attorney. An hour of his time will cost peanuts compared to what we can possibly get out of this.
With agreeing the central theme represented by Mark, still I am incliened to say "Yay" to your suggestion.
This could justify difference in say EB1, EB2 and EB3 or F visa, H Visa and L visa. How ever there is no mention that discrimination could be on the basis of sex/race/country of origin etc. IMHO an extension of standard EEO laws should be applied for EB class immigration too.
NB: I am an HR consultant and an expert on EEO laws, I still think that this discussion is worth taking to a top constitutional attorney. An hour of his time will cost peanuts compared to what we can possibly get out of this.
With agreeing the central theme represented by Mark, still I am incliened to say "Yay" to your suggestion.
venetian
09-15 07:16 PM
Two of my friends with 2005 EB2 PERM got the 485 approval using their 2003 EB3 PD (which were struck in backlog centers).
I assume many 2005 & 2006 EB2 PERM would have done similar PD porting and would have got approvals.
I assume many 2005 & 2006 EB2 PERM would have done similar PD porting and would have got approvals.
grupak
12-14 04:48 PM
Simple. If it wasn't for that ceiling the vast majority of the visas will go to applicants from the oversubscribed countries. Now this is not a bad thing if the visas are in unlimited supply. But since that's not the case, the country ceiling ensures that even people from smaller nations will get an equal oportunity to claim a visa before all the visa are grabbed by their BIG brothers and sisters. And what's more what ever is left is given back to the oversubscribed countries.
How can you call that unfair? Is it fair to deprive a person from a smaller country, equal chance to have go at his GC?
In the current situation, removing the country limit is not a solution because almost everyone is backlogged. On the other hand increasing the total number of GC even by a factor of 2 might not be the solution either because countries like China, India, Mexico and Philippines will likely still be backlogged.
IV is for everyone. Its not just for Indians only, and that is what I believe in. To help everyone, IV is pushing both increasing the total number and also increasing the per country limit. As I explained both of these have to go together otherwise it does not help.
How can you call that unfair? Is it fair to deprive a person from a smaller country, equal chance to have go at his GC?
In the current situation, removing the country limit is not a solution because almost everyone is backlogged. On the other hand increasing the total number of GC even by a factor of 2 might not be the solution either because countries like China, India, Mexico and Philippines will likely still be backlogged.
IV is for everyone. Its not just for Indians only, and that is what I believe in. To help everyone, IV is pushing both increasing the total number and also increasing the per country limit. As I explained both of these have to go together otherwise it does not help.
No comments:
Post a Comment