Does IT Need More H-1B Visas?

Via TheChannelInsider.com
05/05/2006
By Pedro Pereira 

It has always been so. Humans have always roamed, now assimilating, now displacing.

More often than not, who is displacing whom causes the debate. In
the current furor over immigration, the debate revolves around whether
illegal workers who sneak in mostly through the U.S. southern border
are doing jobs Americans don’t want or are taking them away from
Americans.

In the high-tech world, a similar debate centers on so-called
H-1B visas, which allow folks from places such as India, Russia and the
Philippines to enter the United States legally to do temporary jobs
that ostensibly would go unfilled for lack of qualified workers.

Employers of H-1B workers include Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and
IBM. Among the strongest supporters of the visa program are folks like
Bill Gates and former Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy.

The government caps the number of H-1B visas annually at
65,000, but if supporters have their way, that number will jump to
115,000. As the debate over illegal immigration continued to rage this
week, a bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate to hike the number of
visas.

The bill, introduced by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, proposes to
increase the H-1B cap to 115,000, with options to raise the ceiling
annually by 20 percent based on employers’ needs. Some supporters would
love to see the cap pushed back up to the 2001-2003 number of 195,000.

As with all things immigration, H-1B visas are controversial.
Opponents dispute the supporters’ position that visas are necessary to
accommodate a shortage of highly skilled professionals in technology
and related jobs. Almost all H-1B visa holders have bachelor’s degrees,
and about half of them also hold advanced degrees.

Visa holders drive down wages for everybody because employers
pay H-1B visa holders less than they pay American counterparts, say
opponents.

Of course, the salary differential does not apply to all
employers, and some companies, such as Microsoft, IBM and Apple, are
reputed to pay H-1B holders salaries that are comparable to or higher
than the pay of American counterparts.

Visa supporters say the 65,000 cap is too stingy and stifles
innovation, the argument being visa holders who would otherwise
contribute to technology advances may never set foot in the United
States.

Both sides have valid points.

The H-1B program has a place in our economy. It fills skills gaps and has other benefits.

PointerH-1B helps keep VARs up to speed. Click here to read more.

For instance, channel companies have used money from the fees
paid by employers of H-1B visa workers to train their own staffs on
much-needed IT skills. The money was disbursed by the Department of
Labor through the H-1B Technical Skills Training Grant Program.

The question is whether the government should raise the cap.
Before making that decision, due diligence is needed. Do we truly need
more H-1B visa holders? Are employers doing everything they can to give
the jobs to citizens or permanent residents before resorting to H-1B
visa hires? One way to ensure they do would be to raise the fees.

In addition, employers that abuse the program by paying visa holders less than they would other workers should be penalized.

Furthermore, if we are going to continue importing skilled
workers because they make an important contribution to our economy, we
should reward them accordingly. The pathway to U.S. citizenship for
these folks should be simpler and quicker. First, they must obtain
green cards, approval for which can take years. Citizenship is possible
only after five years of having a green card.

So what should we expect to happen? Most likely Congress will
simply increase the visa cap without any meaningful analysis, and the
debate will rage on. And so it goes with immigration.

A Look Inside U.S. Immigration Prisons

Via DemocracyNow!

Undocumented immigrants are one of the largest growing populations
being detained by the U.S government. We look at the issue of
immigration detention, focusing on the treatment of immigrant
detainees, the trend towards privatization of detention centers and the
policies behind it all.

Click to read discussion about US Immigration Prisons

US Eases Immigration Rules for Burmese Refugees

Via VOANews.com
05/05/2006

The Bush administration has authorized a
waiver of immigration rules to allow the resettlement in the United
States of several thousand Burmese refugees of the Karen ethnic group,
now housed in Thailand. The decision came amid reports of a new exodus
of refugees after renewed fighting between Burmese forces and Karen
rebels.

The decision confirmed by the State Department could mean a new life
in the United States for several thousand Karen refugees who have
languished, in some case for years, in an encampment in Thailand near
the Burmese border.

Until a decision by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Wednesday to
invoke a special waver of resettlement rules, the refugees had been
barred from coming to the United States because of their support for
the Karen National Union (KNU), a rebel group fighting the Burmese
government.

The Karen refugees had been snagged by a provision of the
anti-terrorist U.S. Patriot Act and a related law barring entry to
anyone providing material support to a terrorist or armed rebel group.

At a news briefing, State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack said
as many as 9,300 Karen refugees at the Tham Hin camp in Thailand could
be affected by the decision, but that actual combatants or members of
the Karen National Union would not be eligible:

“This waiver is not a guarantee that individuals might be resettled
in the United States, but merely something that allows the Department
of Homeland Security to consider them as potentially eligible, even
though they might be considered under the law to have provided what is
referred to as material support, which is the term under the law,” he
said.

The waiver granted by Secretary Rice is narrowly focused and does
not apply to other Karen refugees in the region, or refugees of other
nationalities whose bids to enter the United States have been blocked
by the same technicalities.

Refugee advocate groups, including Refugees International, have
welcomed the U.S. waiver as a breakthrough, albeit a limited one.

News reports say several thousand more Karen refugees have fled
Burma for Thailand in recent weeks after renewed fighting between
forces of the Burmese military junta and the rebels.

The Karen have been fighting the Rangoon government for decades in a
quest for autonomy and the new fighting came despite a truce accord
reached two years ago.

The New York-based group Human Rights Watch said Wednesday the U.N.
Security Council should urgently respond to the Burmese military drive,
which it said has displaced more than 10,000 villagers since November.

Human Rights Watch said Burmese civilians seeking refuge in Thailand
have been put at grave risk by landmines planted by the Burmese army
along the border.

USCIS Notifies Employers of Delays in Issuing and Mailing of Receipt Notices for I-129s and I-140s

On April 27, 2006, USCIS issued a Public Notice providing details about its
delay in issuing and mailing receipt notices for Forms I-129 and I-140 filed in
early April 2006. Citing an “unusually large volume of receipts” at the Service
Centers during the first week of April, USCIS explained that it is taking longer
than expected to enter cases into the system. Depending on the type of case, it
may take USCIS up to two weeks to generate and mail receipt notices. USCIS
promised that, although the “Notice Date” will reflect the date the receipt
notice was actually generated, the original receipt date will be honored and
recorded on the receipt notice under “Received Date.” USCIS also stated that it
is addressing the problem and expects to be current by mid-May.

H-1B Cap Count as of 04/24/2006

H-1B Cap Count as of 04/24/2006
Via USCIS

 

Cap

Beneficiaries Approved

Beneficiaries Pending

Beneficiary Target 1

Total

Date of Last Count

H-1B

58,200 2

3,907

8,806

61,000

12,713

4/24/2006

H-1B Advance Degree Exemption

20,000

898

1,460

21,000

2,358

4/24/2006

H-1B (FY 06)

58,200

——

——

——

Cap Reached

8/10/2005

H-1B Advance Degree Exemption (FY 06)

20,000

——

——

——

Cap Reached

1/17/2006

1
Refers to the estimated numbers of beneficiary applications needed to
reach the cap, with an allowance for denials and revocations. Each
target is subject to revision later in the cap cycle as more petitions
are processed.
2 6,800 are
set aside for the H-1B1 program under terms of the U.S.-Chile and
U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. Unused numbers in this pool can
first be made available for general use on October 1, 2006, the start
of FY 2007.

The Victim’s Advocate Story on my clients’ experiences with the Violence Against Women Act

victim

victim (Photo credit: rosmary)

05/03/2006
Via The Victim’s Advocate

I was interviewed recently by Ms. Shaw, a reporter for the Jacksonville, FL based newspaper, “Victim’s Advocate” for a piece on the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”).  By way of background, VAWA assists battered immigrants to escape domestic violence or abuse inflicted by a US Citizen or Legal Permanent Resident (Green Card Holder) spouse, abuse that the immigrant victim often feels must be submitted to in order to remain in the US due to their derivative immigrant status.

All three of my VAWA clients were able to utilize the protections of the Act, two of them being men, among the first cases in this country provided protection under the Violence Against Women Act under our Constitution’s “Equal Protection” clause.  The cover story linked to below discusses two of my clients “Anjuli” and “Rizwan” (my clients’ names remain confidential) for the May issue of the paper.

To win a VAWA case, the victim must provide evidence of their good moral character, their good faith intent in entering into marriage, and proof of their abuse.  Upon successful adjudication of the VAWA petition, battered immigrant spouses (and their children) may remain in the US in an independent immigration status and eventually gain work authorization, permanent residency and citizenship.

Unfortunately, knowledge of the protections offered by VAWA is not widespread.

PDF’s of the story and the content are below:

Different Faces of Domestic Violence – PDF Files

Coverpage/Page 1
Page 2
Page 3

Different Faces of Domestic Violence – Text

“If he ordered me, I had to do it.”

By Shirley Shaw

Anjuli’s introduction to her new life in America came when she stepped off the plane in San Francisco. “You carry your own luggage; I don’t want my parents to pick it up,” her new husband, Sanjay, instructed. Although she could barely lift the heavy suitcases containing her dowry, all her clothes, gifts for her new family, toiletries and other items, she dutifully obeyed. “If he ordered me, I had to do it,” she explains. When they reached their home, Anjuli’s mother-in-law told her that, beginning the next day, she would work from morning to evening, preparing all their meals, fixing lunches, cleaning house, doing laundry – in short, she was their new domestic servant. “You don’t need much sleep,”
her husband told her.

For the educated, privileged daughter of an upper middle class family in New Delhi, India, herself accustomed to being attended by servants, this was a shocking turn of events. But she was a submissive young woman, reared in her culture to be an obedient wife, and she accepted her new role without question.

Anjuli* is a beautiful, shy young woman in her mid-20s who earned her MBA just before she came to the States. Since she had not married and there were no immediate prospects, her father, Ajay Dube, placed her “resume” on a “data bio” website, hoping to attract a suitable husband from Australia, India or the United States. When Sanjay’s father, Anoop Shah, responded from California, the two men began exchanging information about their respective children, families and histories.

* Names have been changed.

After many emails and phone calls, Shah asked his brother (who still resides in India) to visit Anjuli and her family and report his impression of the young woman. That being favorable, the Shahs arranged a 10-day trip to meet Anjuli who, if she pleased them, would become Sanjay’s bride. In the Dubes’ home, Sanjay and Anjuli met and the young woman was evaluated by the Shahs, including a second visit to ensure she had no visible infirmities. The two families agreed upon the marriage, details, terms and conditions were finalized, and the elaborate marriage, celebrated by hundreds of relatives from both families, took place within four days of the Shahs’ arrival in India.

Following a brief two-day honeymoon (during which the groom left Anjuli alone for hours and returned very drunk), Sanjay and his parents completed all the paperwork for her emigration to America and returned to California. Anjuli followed three months later.

Domestic servitude and abuse

Verbal and emotional abuse began immediately as the Shahs made clear Anjuli’s role in their home. Arising at 5 a.m., she prepared breakfast for Sanjay and his mother who went to work early. Then her two sisters-in-law came down for their meal, followed later by the father. If she was ever late, she was severely scolded. Because Anjuli was a few pounds overweight, the family ridiculed her for being “fat” and Mrs. Shah limited her food intake to very small amounts. She was always hungry.

By the second day, Sanjay began slapping her for various “reasons,” and when she fled their room to escape his abuse,
her mother-in-law hit her and pushed her back inside the bedroom. They insisted she sleep on the floor since her new
husband wasn’t accustomed to sleeping with someone else in his bed.

To save money on hot water and toiletries, the male Shahs bathed at the YMCA where Sanjay was a member, and they wanted Anjuli to do the same – they didn’t plan to spend a dime on her. Shortly after her arrival, Mr. Shah took her to the Y and insisted she get on the treadmill to help her lose weight. Never having seen this equipment, Anjuli begged him to let her watch how it operated, but he made her stand on the treads, then he turned the machine on “high” and left to take his bath. She tumbled from the treadmill, crushing several bones in her left hand.

Bystanders came to her rescue, but when her father-in-law finally returned, he refused to allow ambulance transport to the hospital because of the expense. He said he would take her himself, but when they were in his car, he slapped and hit her for allowing the accident to occur.

At the hospital Mrs. Shah vehemently protested when the doctors had to cut off the many bracelets on Anjuli’s arm so they could treat her injuries. Medical personnel forcibly removed the older woman from the room and commiserated with Anjuli for having to live with that  “mad” person. The ER physician gave her medication with instructions to take it with food, and he gave her a cookie. Before she could eat it, Mrs. Shah ate the cookie herself and, consequently, Anjuli fainted from the effect of ingesting medicine on an empty stomach.

Although she now had a castimmobilizing her left hand, Anjuli still had to perform all her household duties, and the starvation, the physical and mental abuse continued. Finally, she tried to get help by calling 911, but the Shahs hung up the phone each time. When police came the next day to check out the calls, the family locked Anjuli in her room and assured the officers no one had called from there, that everything was fine.

All this time, she had had no contact with her family and they assumed she was adjusting  to her new life. Shah called Dube periodically to report that Anjuli was happy and doing well. Mercifully, her ordeal was shortened when her husband
and his family decided they wanted more money and sent her to Jacksonville to get $20,000 from her brother who lives here. When the Dubes learned of Anjuli’s harsh treatment and abuse, they filed an incident report with JSO. She did not
return to San Francisco, and her marriage has since been annulled.

Exploiting other cultures

Anjuli’s story of abuse and domestic violence rises basically from a culture Americans find difficult to understand. The
Shahs obtained a “servant” by exploiting the Indian custom of arranged marriages and kept control over her by threatening to have her
deported. She knew if she returned to India under those circumstances, she would be disgraced and no longer “marketable” as a wife. Very important in her culture is the woman’s right to marry once in her life, and this was taken away from her.

But whatever the means of control, domestic abuse follows the same patterns: fear, intimidation, isolation, humiliation and physical harm to the victims. Those working in shelters for abused women generally consider the three main reasons victims remain in their situations to be the three F’s: fear, finances and fondness. Add to those reasons the fear of deportation and/or the cultural stigma of divorce for women of other countries, and it’s easy to see their terrible dilemmas.

Ashwin Sharma is a local Immigration attorney who moved to Jacksonville several years ago. His practice mainly deals with employment-based immigration law but one of his goals is to educate spouses – men and women – about their rights under VAWA (Violence Against Women Act), part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. (See sidebar for more information.)

While domestic violence and spousal abuse affect a large portion of our population, Sharma believes an even larger percentage of immigrant women may suffer abuse, although there are no accurate statistics available. These women are more likely to endure the abuse, for various reasons:

•women in many other countries already have a subservient role in society and may be accustomed to ill treatment (according to our standards)
•they have a strong concept of family and will sacrifice for the good of the family
•they will tolerate abuse here rather than return home and be a “social pariah and a burden” on their family
•they may have no alternative, nowhere else to go.

Sharma says, “The advent of the Internet has increased the public’s general knowledge about the opportunity of establishing a marital relationship with someone located abroad. Most people exercising this option have no ill intent; however, there are those individuals who want to meet a stereotypically ‘subservient’ woman, someone who will not look them in the eye and will back down in a conflict. These men will do anything to maintain this power.”

Mail order brides

Several “mail-order bride” websites contain such statements as, “American women have priced themselves out of the market for getting married,” or “we don’t want women from here – they have lost their femininity,” or “we must go to other countries and find real women.”

Sharma speculates that some men who solicit mail order brides may be repeatedly exploiting this “legal” way to seek out their prey, exploit the woman, terminate the relationship, and start over again. The cost is relatively minimal – $1000-2000 for a plane ticket and perhaps another $1500 or so for the Immigration paperwork – and the man has a domestic servant, a sex slave, for as long as the arrangement suits him, or until the woman discovers the protections of VAWA.

“The US citizen and fiancé have 90 days to get married,” Sharma explains, “and if he decides not to marry her within that allotted time, he can cast her out, lock the door and she will likely have nowhere to turn. Combine this with the fact that she has no legal status, no money, no knowledge of our laws. Ultimately, she is subject to deportation/removal in accordance with US Immigration law.”

In an interesting departure from the norm, one of his clients is a Turkish man (we’ll call him Rizwan) who married an older American woman in early 2004. Rizwan says that although he had overstayed his visa and faced deportation, he didn’t marry her for the “green card”; he was charmed by the woman, admired her intelligence and genuinely loved her. But not many months had passed before he saw a very different side of her. She was jealous and possessive of the handsome young man and flew into a rage when he didn’t avert his eyes quickly enough at the sight of a pretty girl they saw in a local mall.

For the next several months, she verbally abused Rizwan, hit and slapped him repeatedly, threatened him with a ceremonial sword she owned, and finally threw bleach all over him. He fled to the home of Turkish friends for safety, but she put some bleach on herself, called police, accused him of the act and filed for an injunction against him. Rizwan spent several days in jail before Sharma was able to get him out.

Her actions are consistent with abusers of immigrant spouses – they manipulate the law to get what they want. In Rizwan’s case, his wife threatened to have him deported if he didn’t return to her, but by this time he didn’t care; he decided that he’d rather return to Turkey than put up with her abuse. Although he avoided her, she subsequently lied and had him arrested for violating the injunction she had placed on him. She later dropped the charges and eventually the two were divorced.

This particular story has a happy ending because Rizwan received approval under VAWA, one of the rare cases in which a man was protected under the act. He may now continue to reside in the U.S. independently of his former wife. He has met a lovely young woman who truly loves him and they will be married in the near future.

Sharma related another case that is particularly disturbing because a child is involved. After a lovely young Siberian woman posted her picture on the Internet, a wealthy local 65-year old man brought her and her child to his home. She is now his domestic slave, submits to his sexual depravities, endures physical abuse, and has to account for every minute of her time – but worst of all, she hears her child being verbally humiliated every day. The husband constantly demeans the child, calling her stupid and an idiot, but the wife feels she has no option but to stay and make the best of it; she has no money and nowhere else to go.

“Man’s inhumanity to man”

The above stories are only three examples of immigrants who have come to this country, hoping for a better life for themselves and/or their children. Are they part of a human trafficking ring? No, but their lives are no less miserable, because they are caught in the clutches of unscrupulous human beings who circumvent the law in search of ways to satisfy their schemes.

Today, the immigration issue is hotly debated and most of us are torn by all the ramifications involved, but these people, and countless others like them, are scattered throughout our country – brought here in good faith on their part, only to be relegated to lives of unspeakable misery and hopelessness. VAWA has helped free many of these people from bondage; however, our existing Immigration laws still give U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents a great deal of power which can be used against their spouses to propagate domestic violence with little fear of reprisal.

Poet Robert Burns’ dirge written in the 18th century, “Man was Made to Mourn,” surely applies to our society today:

“Many and sharp the numerous ills,
Inwoven with our frame!
More pointed still we make ourselves,
Regret, remorse, and shame!
And man, whose heaven-erected face
The smiles of love adorn,
Man’s inhumanity to man
Makes countless thousands mourn!”

VAWA – Violence Against Women Act – By Ashwin Sharma

Victims of domestic violence can be men or women, yet the U.S. Department of Justice reports that approximately 97% of the victims of domestic violence are women. The National Violence Against Women Survey, which records incidents of violence against women in America, states that one out of four U.S. women has been physically assaulted or raped by an intimate partner; however, whatever the rate in the general population, the percentage for immigrant women is probably higher.

Accurate statistics regarding assaults against immigrant women are difficult to come by because they often will not report abuse.
A sense of shame, insecurity, and the possibility of separation from their children may prevent these women from speaking out. They are also more vulnerable to abuse because their batterer can threat deportation to silence her.

In 1994 the Federal government enacted a comprehensive “Violence Against Women Act” as Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which is useful in preventing abuse of immigrant women. VAWA allowed victimized immigrants to file their own applications for lawful permanent resident status and created a new visa category for the spouses and their children and authorized the INS to issue up to 10,000 visas per year. Because the woman could self-petition, she no longer had to rely on a non-cooperative and abusive spouse. The Act in effect took away much of the power that the batterers held over their wives.

Two years after VAWA was passed, newly implemented immigration reform bills required that battered women return to their country of citizenship before their case could be heard, thus stripping from them the rights and privileges of American justice. These reforms also did not allow the battered wife to remain in the country if she had arrived on an incorrect visa status, or had overstayed it – a disturbing development because some abusive husbands, in an effort to retain control over their wives, knowingly did not submit an I-130 family petition for their wives.

Women who had grown desperate after repeated abuse and had divorced their husbands had no protection and were out of status because their status was considered a derivative of their husbands’. Their deportation was imminent, despite the fact that an abusive husband had forced them out of their marriages. Finally, an “extreme hardship” requirement was imposed on those victims who attempted to utilize the protections of VAWA.

VAWA was re-authorized in 1999/2000, and continues to take steps towards addressing the needs of battered immigrant women. They now do not have to leave the country to begin their petition for legal permanent residency. Divorced women are also allowed to request VAWA protection within two years of divorcing an abusive husband, if the divorce was related to the abuse.

The 2005 version of VAWA was signed into law by President Bush in December 2005.

The Self-Petition Procedure

To self-petition, an immigrant must show that:

• She was battered or subjected to extreme cruelty, and is or was married to a U.S. citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident within the past two years. Unmarried children of the self-petitioner who are under age 21 may be included in the petition, OR
• She is the parent of a child who has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by that parent’s U.S. citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident spouse. The mother of the battered child may self-petition and include all of her unmarried children under age 21 who live in the U.S. in her petition.

The woman then must file an I-360 with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The government filing fee is $190, which may be waived by INS if she proves
her inability to pay. The USCIS need not have authorization by or permission from the woman’s husband.

The I-360 form is available in person at a USCIS office, by calling 1-800-870-3676, or
as a PDF file that may be found at the http://www.bcis.gov website.

For more information, contact Ashwin Sharma, Esq., Leimbach & Associates,
904/779-0111, http://www.immigrationfirm.net.

Employers walk a legal tightrope

Via The Kansas City Star


I
llegal immigration is built into U.S. law.

That’s the no-holds-barred truth, spoken by Mira Mdivani, an Overland Park attorney specializing in immigration law.

“Employers have to violate the law, and people have to come
illegally, and now the potato is too hot to handle,” Mdivani said in
calculated hyperbole.

The numbers of H1B and H2B work visas authorized by Congress are
inadequate, she said. The annual visa quotas often are snapped up by
the first day of the fiscal year, leaving employers another year of
time and expense to try to get legal work permits for people they hire.

At a recent employment law seminar sponsored by the Overland Park Chamber of Commerce,
Mdivani counseled about a dozen employers who were trying hard to dot
their i’s correctly and stay out of trouble if immigration officials
come calling.

Mdivani congratulated them on their concern — and then presented a daunting outline of how to hire immigrants legally.

Currently, she said, she’s representing an immigrant whose work visa
has expired. The system is so backlogged, though, that it may be a year
before her client gets the updated paperwork that certifies legal
worker status.

The client’s employer thinks the worker must be fired because of the visa expiration.

“That’s not right,” Mdivani said. “You don’t have to get rid of the
person. The person is perfectly authorized to work. The permit is
automatically extended, even if the paperwork takes a year.”

But extensions are different from first-time authorizations. And
that’s the truly hot potato. Countless U.S. employers simply ignore
immigration law and hope the authorities don’t visit.

That’s why it was somewhat bittersweet to hear the detailed
questions from the handful of Overland Park business operators who
attended Mdivani’s presentation.

Take their concerns about proper handling of I-9s. Those are the Employment Eligibility Verification forms distributed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 required employers to
verify the identity and work authorization status of all employees by
filling out I-9 forms. It’s a headache that, essentially, asks
employers to be immigration police and forgery experts.

But the worries about ferreting out illegal workers don’t stop
there. Employers who want to walk a legal line also need to be careful
about how they handle their I-9 paperwork.

For example, Mdivani said, a company leaves itself wide open for
discrimination lawsuits if it asks for I-9s only from workers who
appear to be foreign-born.

“If discovery finds that ‘Peter Smith’ doesn’t have an I-9 on file
but ‘Pedro Rodriguez’ does, that could be a problem. The law needs to
be applied the same to everyone,” Mdivani warned.

And then there’s the matter of when an I-9 form is presented to the worker. It must be after the job offer is extended, not before, to avoid the appearance of discriminatory hiring practices.

That fine line between immigration and civil rights law is a tightrope for the employers who are trying to do things right.

And that’s a sector that hasn’t been massing in demonstrations in recent weeks.

Avoiding H-1B Visa Wage Violations

Via HR.BLR.COM

H-1B visas allow certain skilled foreign nationals to work in the United States
for 3 years or, if renewed, for 3 years more. They are used most frequently
by high-tech employers, universities, and multinational employers that find
workers with certain qualifications in short supply. The visas are available
for jobs that require at least a bachelor’s degree and call for the theoretical
application of a highly specialized body of knowledge.

Recently, Computech Inc., which places computer professionals at workplaces
throughout the nation, agreed to pay $2,250,000 in back wages and a $400,000
fine to settle Department of Labor (DOL) charges that it violated H-1B visa
rules concerning the employment of over 230 foreign nationals.

Computech allegedly didn’t pay workers on H-1B visas, several of whom
were in California, the minimum required wage rates in the areas where they
were employed. Computech was also accused of frequently “benching”
the H-1B workers without compensation, which violates H-1B program rules. Besides
the back wages and fine, the settlement also prohibits Computech from participating
in the H-1B visa program for 18 months.

Avoid Trouble

Many employers that hire foreign workers on H-1B visas when work is plentiful
often struggle with what to do with them when times are tough. But as the recent
Computech development shows, paying these workers a lower wage than authorized
or “benching” them isn’t the answer.

Here are some guidelines to help you follow the rules and stay out of trouble:

Follow wage requirements. Sponsoring a worker for an H-1B visa involves
various steps, including filing a Labor Condition Application (LCA) with the
DOL and, once that’s approved, applying to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) for the actual visa. In your LCA, you must agree to pay the
worker your industry’s prevailing wage or the actual wage for that job
at the worksite, whichever is higher. These rates must be backed by a wage survey.

You’re also required to offer these foreign workers the same benefits
you provide U.S. employees. It’s important to keep the wage information
that’s in your H-1B file up-to-date to help defend your pay practices if
an H-1B visa worker complains to the DOL that they are paid less than the prevailing
wage.

Don’t bench workers. Some employers who are implementing layoffs
or other cost-cutting measures may be tempted to “bench” an H-1B worker­to
stop paying them when there is no work without actually firing them and terminating
their visa sponsorship. But this practice is prohibited, and continuing as the
worker’s sponsoring employer for visa purposes can leave you open to claims
for back wages.

The law requires you to pay a worker you sponsor at the prevailing wage until
you withdraw the visa petition. If no work is available, immediately notify
the USCIS to vacate the visa. Also, try to give H-1B visa employees as much
advance notice as possible before a layoff so they can look for another job
while still on your payroll

Have you applied for the H 1B visa?

Via Indiatimes.com

Most H1B visa seekers start pressing
the panic button in April and the feeling is that they must file their petition
on April 1, or within days of April 1 to get an H-1B visa. However, this is not
accurate. For example, last year, the H-1B quota was reached only in August.


If
you are a candidate, who is at present in the US on another status, note that
filing in April for an October 1 H-1B does not preserve status. In other words,
the H-1B candidate must have valid underlying status through October 1 in order
to wait in the US.
This is not to say that waiting is a good thing or that one
should wait until August, because there may or may not be, H-1Bs available at
that point. However, if one can file at some point during April, an H-1B should
be secured.

The H-1B quota only applies to those who are applying
for a new H-1B. It does not apply to those applying for H-1B transfers or to
certain individuals who have had the H-1B category in the last six
years.

If you are a candidate, who is at present in the US on another
status, note that filing in April for an October 1 H-1B does not preserve
status. In other words, the H-1B candidate must have valid underlying status
through October 1 in order to wait in the US.


The
average waiting period to get a green card is six years or longer and currently
there are over half a million application pending, according to Immigration
Voice, an advocacy group that tracks US government data

.

Otherwise, the candidate should wait abroad for his/her
H-1B. If you are an F-1 student on optional practical training (OPT) you need to
process an H-1B at this time i.e. in April in order to remain with the employer
past the expiration date of the OPT.

When the US Senate failed to
agree on changes to US immigration laws concerning illegal immigrants and border
control recently, these were not the only issues left pending. The question of
increase in H1-B quota was also left unanswered. The latest Bill has recommended
that the H-1B cap is lifted from annual 65,000 to 115,000 for 3 years.

Thereafter, the cap may rise up to 20% per year if the whole cap
(115,000) is used up in the prior year. If the cap is not reached, then the cap
in the following year will remain the same as the current year. It has to be
seen what happens to this proposal when the Senate debates the Bill further
after reconvening.

The average waiting period to get a green card is
six years or longer and currently there are over half a million application
pending, according to Immigration Voice, an advocacy group that tracks US
government data.

With economies in Asia and the South Pacific on the
rise, an exodus of foreign workers is taking place. Tired of waiting for US
permanent residence permit, people are either returning home or choosing to work
elsewhere overseas.

With the ‘baby boomer generation’
reaching retirement age, experts predict a shortage of skilled professionals to
replace them. About 70,000 IT students graduate out of US universities annually.

Many predict that the number won’t meet the need for a
projected 600,000 additional openings for IT professionals between 2002 and
2012, and the openings created by retirements.

They believe the
problem will spread unless the government allows more foreign workers to enter
the country, and speed up their residency process. Some critics, however, say
increasing the numbers of skilled foreign workers would depress wages and take
positions away from American workers.

“We should only issue
work-related visas if we really need them,” said Caroline Espinosa, a
spokeswoman with Numbers USA, a group pushing for immigration reduction.
“There are 2.5 million native born American workers in the math and
computer field who are currently out of work. It begs the question whether we
truly need foreign workers.”

In his February economic report,
President Bush outlined proposals to overhaul the system for employment-based
green cards. Bush’s proposals were to exempt spouses and children from the
annual limit of 140,000 green cards. Dependents make up about half of all green
cards issued annually.

Secondly, to replace the existing cap with a
flexible market based cap that responds to the needs employers have for
employing foreign labour. And finally, to raise the 7% limit for green cards
issued to nations such as India that have many highly skilled
workers.

The US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued
its first H1B Cap Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, which begins October 1,
2006. The report shows that, at the end the day on April 3, 2006, the first
business day that FY2007 cap-subject cases could be filed, the USCIS received
1,631 H1B filings (subject to the 65,000 quota) and 340 Masters H1Bs (subject to
the 20,000.quota).


Continue reading article

Asians get more vocal in immigration debate

Via USATODAY.com
05/01/2006

In New York City’s Chinatown, Asian immigrants
held hands and formed a “human chain” at 12:16 p.m. Monday to mark the
day, Dec. 16, when the House of Representatives voted for a bill that
would make illegal immigrants felons.

In Philadelphia, Korean activists held a forum
on immigration. In Los Angeles, they encouraged employers to let
workers take the day off to join a march down Wilshire Boulevard.

Latinos have been the face of recent immigration
rallies, but Asians and Asian-Americans are increasingly joining the
protests or taking their own approach. They are speaking out on issues
such as reducing the wait times for visas for family members or green
cards for skilled workers.

“This is a turning point for them. More Asians
are joining into this larger civil rights movement,” says Pueng Vongs,
an editor at New America Media, a consortium of ethnic news media.

“Our community has been fairly slow to mobilize,
but we are definitely working together now,” says Daniel Huang, policy
advocate for the Asian Pacific American Legal Center. He says Spanish
radio stations helped Latinos organize quickly for rallies, but varying
languages mean it’s harder to reach Asians that way.

People of Asian ancestry were 13% of the 11.1
million undocumented population in a 2005 Census survey, says Jeffrey
Passel, senior research associate at the Pew Hispanic Center. Four
countries — China, India, the Philippines and South Korea — account for
most of them.

Continue reading article

Immigration: Senate is trying again.

Via The Chicago Sun Times
05/02/2006

Will the Senate get back on track on immigration?

from Senate Dems

REID: DEMOCRATS STAND READY TO PASS COMPREHENSVIE IMMIGRATION REFORM

“Every day we wait to fix our immigration system, the situation gets worse.”

Washington, DC—Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid today delivered
the following Floor remarks on the need to pass comprehensive
immigration reform in the Senate. Democrats are urging Republicans to
put aside their internal party differences and work for comprehensive
reform for America’s broken immigration system.

Remarks of Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid

As prepared

Tuesday, May 2, 2006

Mr. President, yesterday marked another day of peaceful, dignified
rallies across the country in support of comprehensive immigration
reform. These rallies underscore the need for Congress to pass a strong
and effective immigration bill this year.

Last Friday, I had the privilege of discussing this subject with
Roger Cardinal Mahony, the Archbishop of Los Angeles, and Theodore
Cardinal McCarrick, the Archbishop of Washington.

It was a very moving meeting for me, and I appreciated the chance to
speak with two such kind and thoughtful men. Both of them have been
tremendous leaders on the issue of immigration reform. We all agreed
that it is of the utmost importance for Congress to move forward with
an immigration bill as soon as possible.

Last week, I also met with President Bush at the White House, along
with many of my Democratic and Republican colleagues. As I said after
that meeting, I am not in the habit of patting the President on the
back, but he really deserved credit for calling us together and for
hosting a good, bipartisan meeting.

I made clear to the President that Senators on this side of the
aisle are committed to comprehensive immigration reform. I pledged to
work with him and the Majority Leader in a bipartisan way on this
important issue.

Every day we wait to fix our immigration system, the situation gets worse.

As I have said many times, our current immigration system is broken.
We must have a cohesive, coordinated effort to strengthen border
security, create legal mechanisms for American companies to hire
essential temporary employees and encourage the 11 million undocumented
immigrants in the United States to come out of the shadows. We need to
know who these people are and make sure they are productive,
law-abiding, tax-paying members of the community. We must also have
proper employer sanction enforcement, so that employers do not hire
undocumented individuals with impunity.

But the question remains: how will we move forward here in the Senate?

Over the Easter recess, I sent a letter to the Majority Leader
urging him to bring the immigration bill back before the full Senate at
the earliest opportunity. I expressed my view that the Senate should
resume the immigration debate immediately after we complete work on the
supplemental appropriations bill.

The supplemental bill will be completed this week. Therefore, I
continue to believe that such a schedule makes sense. Few other issues
are as important, and no other issue is as ripe for Senate debate.
Surely we can pass a good comprehensive immigration bill before the
Memorial Day recess.

To accomplish that goal, I want to reach an agreement with the
Majority Leader on a process for completing debate. There are two basic
elements to such an agreement: the number of amendments and an
understanding about how the bill will be handled in Conference with the
House.

Opponents have filed hundreds of amendments to weaken or kill the
compromise bill. We are prepared to debate and vote on some of those
amendments, but there must be some finite number. I have made clear to
the Majority Leader that I am flexible about the number we will vote
on.

Earlier I suggested three amendments per side. Today, I suggest we
vote on ten amendments per side, for a total of twenty amendments. With
potential second degree amendments, we could have as many as forty
votes. I am willing to have that many votes if that is what it takes to
move this legislation forward. But this bill will take many days to
finish.

As important as the number of amendments is what happens in Conference.

With Republicans in the House having passed a bill making all
undocumented immigrants felons, with the House majority leader publicly
dismissing the Senate’s bill, and with the House Judiciary Committee
Chairman serving as the sponsor of the felon provision in the House
legislation, it is imperative we have a firm agreement on who the
conference participants will be before moving to the bill.

I have said in the past the most equitable membership would consist
of the Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
However, if the distinguished Majority leader has an alternate proposal
that will protect the completion of a fair Conference, I will listen,
as will Senator Leahy the ranking member of Judiciary.

We cannot allow the House to hijack this bill and destroy the Senate
Judiciary Committee’s bipartisan work. Under these unusual
circumstances, conference protections are indispensable.

There are many kinds of possible conference protections. But the
most straightforward way is to appoint the members of the Judiciary
Committee as conferees. They understand this complex subject, and they
are committed to the Senate approach. The Committee ratio is 10-8, so
the majority has a two vote margin.

The concept of sending the full committee to conference is hardly
unprecedented. The Appropriations Committee and the Armed Services
Committee typically send their entire membership to conference. The
Judiciary Committee has done this on prior occasions. One way or
another, it is crucial that this bill be the product of ­bipartisan
consensus.

I hope that we can work together toward adequate assurances that the
Senate’s delicate compromise will not be filibustered by amendments or
blown up in conference.

Immigration reform is vital to America’s national security. We have
an obligation to act, and I look forward to the Senate resuming this
important debate in the very near future.

Thousands march for immigrant rights

VIA CNN.com

Schools, businesses feel impact as students, workers walk out

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) — Kids skipped school. Men and women walked off their jobs. Others didn’t bother going to work. Businesses shut down for lack of patrons or employees.

Throngs of immigrants and advocates took to the streets of many U.S.
cities Monday to protest proposed immigration laws, and the sites
represented a veritable where’s where of American metropolises.

Among
them: New York; Washington; Las Vegas, Nevada; Miami, Florida; Chicago,
Illinois; Los Angeles, California; San Francisco, California; Atlanta,
Georgia; Denver, Colorado; Phoenix, Arizona; New Orleans, Louisiana;
and Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Continue reading article

US braces for ‘Day Without Immigrants’

Via Yahoo.com
05/01/2006

LOS ANGELES (AFP) – The United States was braced for a “Day Without
Immigrants,” a nationwide strike and business boycott organized by
illegal immigrants and their supporters in a bid to push through
immigration reform that would legalize the presence of an estimated 12
million undocumented workers in the country.

Many Hispanic groups urged their members to forgo work, school and
shopping on Monday to demonstrate illegal immigrants’ economic and
political power.

“We have to make our presence felt through our absence,” organizers
from the nation’s most influential Hispanic groups said Friday at their
final press conference before the mass boycott.

But Republican Representative Tom Tancredo, chairman of the House
Immigration Reform Caucus, said that a day without illegal aliens would
be “a boon to the American taxpayer,” who wouldnt pay for the
tremendous social service costs of persons living in the country
illegally.

He said the net cost to the federal government of public services
provided to illegal aliens in 2005 was estimated to be 11.7 billion
dollars, or 3,080 dollars per each American household.

Monday is a normal work day in the United States, where Labor Day is
celebrated in September instead of May 1. However, it might look more
like a May Day abroad, complete with demonstrations called by labor
unions and workers’ rights advocates.

The demonstration was planned by a network representing some 40 million Hispanics.

“We’ve unequivocally called on all families to participate in the Great
American Boycott and the marches — and that translates into not going
to work, not going to school, not shopping and not selling,” Nativo
Lopez, president of the Mexican-American Political Association, said.

However, city and school officials and the “We Are America” coalition,
which includes the Roman Catholic Church, are encouraging people to go
to school and work and then join the demonstrations later in the day.

The division over the way the protests should be carried out is as evident among political leaders as it is among unions.

Continue reading article