Great news - Hold on H.R. 3012 lifted

[catx]

Well, if there is a need companies will sponsor H1Bs. If the companies can find citizens or GC holders for that position, they will not file H1B. Wasn't this the real purpose of H1B? Its a simple case of Demand & Supply.

Because of the H1B abuse all these years, genuine people have been affected. Visas are exhausted in few weeks or months because the Big 5 Indian companies eat up all the visas even when most of their employees won't be using H1Bs for a long time or never. Genuine people get stuck in Visa stamping because of this abuse.

Regarding the second paragraph -- all true.

Regarding the first paragraph -- U.S. companies (not all of course) are contributing in part to the problem, and thus share some of the blame. The 'body shop' type contracting, notably via the EV...C model, makes it (all to) easy for companies (clients) to add and drop people from projects (and add and drop projects) without the burden, commitment, and benefits associated with hiring U.S. citizen or direct H-1B employees. (Most companies do not want to be in the practice of regularly hiring and laying off employees.) These companies willingly benefit from using arms length contractors with the ability to drop them with short notice and little or no penalty. (Think about how many U.S. citizens are consultants working in EV...C model. Why do many U.S. citizen IT professionals oppose H-1B and L-1 visas ... because companies are using foreign EV...C consultants versus hiring employees, even if consultant's rate is higher than an employee's salary.) This is why you see U.S. citizen IT professionals and politicians wanting to restrict H-1B and L-1 visas (something the USCIS and DoS is already are doing), and at the same time U.S. companies are requesting more H-1B visas (without saying for consultants, not direct hires).

[zak74]

In US, the work visa and GC gives the control to employers. In countries like Canada, UK, Australia it's not. For example, in UK, after being in work visa for 4 years, I could just go to UK Home Office and give my application for permanent residency. No need for labor petition, I-140 and all the other BS that employers use to keep employees for decades. Employer dependency on H1B and GC should be used. This should be offer based.

[Shurap1]

Ok do not bother to discuss this further as some other senators have put a hold on H.R.3012.

[JoeF]

and why should it not be so?

So, you want everybody to suffer???

How about making it faster for everybody instead?

Your jealousy is showing. It is never a good idea to do something because of jealousy.

[tusharvk]

You can always find one citizen or an LPR to cover a position, but it is impossible to cover 10,000 openings with 5,000 citizens and LPRs. So, simple presence of citizens and LPRs in the profession does not mean that H1Bs are not needed. This means that citizens or LPRs of much lower skill will have to be hired, and I know countless cases when it happened, and it usually works out not so well. Still, for many it is less pain than hiring on H1.

The more difficult and unpredictable the H1 process, the more of the visa will go to the desi consultants.

also outsourcing will go up if the h1b process is made tougher.

Well known that there is skills shortage and foreign talent is available to fill the gap. Either have the jobs here in the form of h1b or be prepared to outsource.H1b should be easier.

At the same time, we hear all these layered employees who are on h1b (EVVC, etc.). These are getting visas denied at consulates in India. This kind of abuse needs to be prevented.

[tusharvk]

In US, the work visa and GC gives the control to employers. In countries like Canada, UK, Australia it's not. For example, in UK, after being in work visa for 4 years, I could just go to UK Home Office and give my application for permanent residency. No need for labor petition, I-140 and all the other BS that employers use to keep employees for decades. Employer dependency on H1B and GC should be used. This should be offer based.

Canada is hard to get jobs in the first place due to protected job market.

As for UK, are the wages reasonable (to cost of living)?

In the US also, there is a way to get green card without employer. EB1 or EB2NIW do not require perm.

[JoeF]

A usually well-informed lawyer reports (sorry, can't post the link here): "There is a rumor of other holds on H.R. 3012 by some Senators other than Sen. Grassley's."

Seems that Grassley's amendment really is a poison pill...

[Belle]

In US, the work visa and GC gives the control to employers. In countries like Canada, UK, Australia it's not. For example, in UK, after being in work visa for 4 years, I could just go to UK Home Office and give my application for permanent residency. No need for labor petition, I-140 and all the other BS that employers use to keep employees for decades. Employer dependency on H1B and GC should be used. This should be offer based.

I agree, a much better system. The easier it is to get a work visa or permanent residency, then less the opportunity to abuse the employee.

[tkj1970]

I think attorneys generally do not like immigration bills such as HR 3012. They lose revenues from EAD/AP/H1B renewals

[JoeF]

I think attorneys generally do not like immigration bills such as HR 3012. They lose revenues from EAD/AP/H1B renewals

Actually, a lot of lawyers have stated that HR3012 would get them more business.

So, please don't perpetuate baseless rumors.

[Pokymon]

Actually, a lot of lawyers have stated that HR3012 would get them more business.

So, please don't perpetuate baseless rumors.

How? Almost 99.99% of EB3 applicants have filed I-485 before August 31, 2007. Attorney's will generate income only when PD passes after August 2007; I don't think it will take at least another 5 years. By the way, by not passing HR 3012, Attorney's are benefitting either,

[Desi Dude]

Actually, a lot of lawyers have stated that HR3012 would get them more business.

So, please don't perpetuate baseless rumors.

JoeF, can you explain how it will get them more business?

As far as I know, lawyers get the most business from EB3 to EB2 upgrades since the whole process is repeated twice for every applicant. Also from H1B renewals.

[JoeF]

JoeF, can you explain how it will get them more business?

I don't run a law firm...

I have seen posts from lawyers stating that they would profit from HR3012.

[JoeF]

One lawyer said: "Personally, if it passes, it will be a financial bonanza for my firm. Most of our clients are Indian and this will make it much easier for them to immigrate. That, in turn, means more business for us."

[tkj1970]

One lawyer said: "Personally, if it passes, it will be a financial bonanza for my firm. Most of our clients are Indian and this will make it much easier for them to immigrate. That, in turn, means more business for us."

Whether the bill passes or not, those who wants to file for GC, will file anyway. So it will not make a difference from financial point of view. If it passes long waiting EB3 applicants will get GC faster and thus no need to renew AP/EAD/H1B - means lawyers lose revenues.

[JoeF]

Whether the bill passes or not, those who wants to file for GC, will file anyway. So it will not make a difference from financial point of view. If it passes long waiting EB3 applicants will get GC faster and thus no need to renew AP/EAD/H1B - means lawyers lose revenues.

That's the same kind of faulty reasoning that had people claim it takes 70 years for a GC...

These are not independent things. A lawyer may lose revenues from a particular person, but the lawyer may well make it up by getting more revenues from more people applying.

You may (or may not) have heard of how retail works. A retail company may have loss leaders, i.e., items they advertise that actually get them to lose money. But they make it up by people buying other things while they are in the store. Similarly here.

I suggest actually learning how businesses are run...

[super25]

is it posted any where that there are other holds on this Bill? is it official?

[JoeF]

The Senate calendar still shows Grassley's hold.

[tkj1970]

That's the same kind of faulty reasoning that had people claim it takes 70 years for a GC...

These are not independent things. A lawyer may lose revenues from a particular person, but the lawyer may well make it up by getting more revenues from more people applying.

You may (or may not) have heard of how retail works. A retail company may have loss leaders, i.e., items they advertise that actually get them to lose money. But they make it up by people buying other things while they are in the store. Similarly here.

I suggest actually learning how businesses are run...

Well, as I said , whether the bill passes or not, those who wants to file for GC, will file anyway. I do not see anything different in your point negating this.

[JoeF]

Well, as I said , whether the bill passes or not, those who wants to file for GC, will file anyway. I do not see anything different in your point negating this.

So, you are saying that all this whining about how long the GC takes is just that, whining? You are saying that these people would wait 100 years, as long as they get the GC?