desi3933
03-17 07:21 AM
Did you just say "Just because people are not getting green cards does not mean wastage":D
That is exactly why we need to understand the process.
Have a look at visa numbers issued to EB category for the last 5 years and decide for yourself if visa numbers were wasted. I hope this helps with your "anxiety".
Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
EB-All 246,877 159,081 162,176 166,511 141,020
EB1 64,731 36,960 26,697 36,678 40,978
EB2 42,597 21,911 44,162 70,046 46,034
EB3 129,070 89,922 85,030 48,903 39,791
EB4 10,133 9,539 5,481 9,524 9,999
EB5 346 749 806 1,360 4,218
_________________
Not a legal advice.
That is exactly why we need to understand the process.
Have a look at visa numbers issued to EB category for the last 5 years and decide for yourself if visa numbers were wasted. I hope this helps with your "anxiety".
Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
EB-All 246,877 159,081 162,176 166,511 141,020
EB1 64,731 36,960 26,697 36,678 40,978
EB2 42,597 21,911 44,162 70,046 46,034
EB3 129,070 89,922 85,030 48,903 39,791
EB4 10,133 9,539 5,481 9,524 9,999
EB5 346 749 806 1,360 4,218
_________________
Not a legal advice.
wallpaper Enchanted Arms (PS3) Opinie
keshtwo
07-09 04:40 PM
I hope this lawsuit fails. Looking ahead this lawsuit, if it succeeds might do us more damage than good. Law of unintended consequences states that something can happen we haven't thought of.
Supposing, if lawsuit goes ahead and wins, one outcome might be - USCIS might start adhering to strict interpretation of 7% per country, or curtail spillovers drastically. Then we are in deep shit.
Supposing, if lawsuit goes ahead and wins, one outcome might be - USCIS might start adhering to strict interpretation of 7% per country, or curtail spillovers drastically. Then we are in deep shit.
WeShallOvercome
07-20 02:38 PM
Few employers and few lawyers didn't apply for EAD/AP on July 2nd. My employer said they applied for 485 but not EAD/AP. They will wait for receipt notice and then apply for EAD/AP.
After Aug 17th, can we still apply for EAD/AP knowing dates won't be current.
Thanks.
you don't need PD's to be current to apply for interim benefits like EAD/AP
After Aug 17th, can we still apply for EAD/AP knowing dates won't be current.
Thanks.
you don't need PD's to be current to apply for interim benefits like EAD/AP
2011 Enchanted Arms Dealer
satdal
01-17 03:59 PM
Just signed up for $20 Recurring Monthly. The video presentation is simply fabulous. Great Job by Aman, as always !
Here are the details of the subscription --- Subscription#S-5SV04028RR209515C.
Subscription Payment Sent (ID #2DU65702LW627190T)
Here are the details of the subscription --- Subscription#S-5SV04028RR209515C.
Subscription Payment Sent (ID #2DU65702LW627190T)
more...
feedfront
10-05 03:10 PM
Hi Guys,
My attorney sent the response last week and it was delivered to the Dallas, TX. I am little concerned that my attorney actually sent the response to a courier address rather than the PO Box for TSC that they ask you to send. So far I have not seen any updates on my case.
Vgayalu: After how many days did you see an update after you sent the response to the RFE.
Ask your attorney to call USCIS for confirmation. Did he add return receipt also? It should not be any issue once you get the confirmation. Good Luck!
My attorney sent the response last week and it was delivered to the Dallas, TX. I am little concerned that my attorney actually sent the response to a courier address rather than the PO Box for TSC that they ask you to send. So far I have not seen any updates on my case.
Vgayalu: After how many days did you see an update after you sent the response to the RFE.
Ask your attorney to call USCIS for confirmation. Did he add return receipt also? It should not be any issue once you get the confirmation. Good Luck!
saimrathi
07-05 01:52 PM
In the time it took you to write all this up, mayb you coudl have enlightened a senator or two...
I think atleast the forums section should be made restricted to contributing members. I see many newcomers (both paying and freebies) come to this site and hoping to get a quick guidence on their immigration issue. They come here becasue they know a) they will get some answer quickly b) that answer will make sense and experinced users here who have gone through similar situation will share their insights.
Those are major outcomes or results for not paying any dime.
I can understand someone's concern about asking everyone to pay certain amount. But most of us here are earning decent wages and can contribute atleast 3$ a month (or 25$ a year) for such a service.
If those members want to contribute more as many of us do then they are most welcome to do so.
In $$$ terms of the 12K + members we can retain 40% (about 5K) and each of them contributes atleast 25$ a year (one time payment) = $75,000.00
Remember this $75K is only based on basic membership fees. Any dropouts or reduced rate of conversion will be compensated by those '20$ a month' paying members (roughly by 1 as to 10).
In short, I support this idea of having majority of forums under restricted umbrella.
- PMAMP
I think atleast the forums section should be made restricted to contributing members. I see many newcomers (both paying and freebies) come to this site and hoping to get a quick guidence on their immigration issue. They come here becasue they know a) they will get some answer quickly b) that answer will make sense and experinced users here who have gone through similar situation will share their insights.
Those are major outcomes or results for not paying any dime.
I can understand someone's concern about asking everyone to pay certain amount. But most of us here are earning decent wages and can contribute atleast 3$ a month (or 25$ a year) for such a service.
If those members want to contribute more as many of us do then they are most welcome to do so.
In $$$ terms of the 12K + members we can retain 40% (about 5K) and each of them contributes atleast 25$ a year (one time payment) = $75,000.00
Remember this $75K is only based on basic membership fees. Any dropouts or reduced rate of conversion will be compensated by those '20$ a month' paying members (roughly by 1 as to 10).
In short, I support this idea of having majority of forums under restricted umbrella.
- PMAMP
more...
ak_2006
04-08 09:35 AM
Please Participate in this...
2010 Enchanted Arms
zuhail
03-10 01:09 PM
Hello,
I strongly suggest that we focus our time and efforts on a single and achievable target in this calendar year 2009.
Recapturing unused visa numbers from the last two decades would help us eliminate the retrogression issue. Other changes like Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Eliminating per country limits etc would require a leap of faith in the political process and it is unlikely to be achieved in this calendar year. The economy, unemployment rates, health care etc are bound to dominate the legislative agenda this year.
I suggest writing a petition or letter to the White House and the administrative offices strongly urging them to recapture the unused visa numbers.
I think we should follow the KISS ("Keep it Simple, Stupid") Principle to achieve this target.
If we add any other immigration provisions, it would increase the complexity of the legislation and it is bound to fail.
Could the administrators of this forum please consider my suggestion of focusing on recapturing the visa numbers and assign this task the highest priority.
By re-capturing the visa numbers, we are not asking for any change in the immigration laws. We are simply asking to use the visa numbers that had been lost due to inefficient processing by the USCIS.
Let us start preparing a petition and create a dedicated fund to achieve this goal of visa number recapturing.
Thank you.
I strongly suggest that we focus our time and efforts on a single and achievable target in this calendar year 2009.
Recapturing unused visa numbers from the last two decades would help us eliminate the retrogression issue. Other changes like Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Eliminating per country limits etc would require a leap of faith in the political process and it is unlikely to be achieved in this calendar year. The economy, unemployment rates, health care etc are bound to dominate the legislative agenda this year.
I suggest writing a petition or letter to the White House and the administrative offices strongly urging them to recapture the unused visa numbers.
I think we should follow the KISS ("Keep it Simple, Stupid") Principle to achieve this target.
If we add any other immigration provisions, it would increase the complexity of the legislation and it is bound to fail.
Could the administrators of this forum please consider my suggestion of focusing on recapturing the visa numbers and assign this task the highest priority.
By re-capturing the visa numbers, we are not asking for any change in the immigration laws. We are simply asking to use the visa numbers that had been lost due to inefficient processing by the USCIS.
Let us start preparing a petition and create a dedicated fund to achieve this goal of visa number recapturing.
Thank you.
more...
vshar
03-12 09:59 AM
Priyah Dosto,
Visa Bulletin Gaand Mein Ley Lao Ab..... Kuch nahi hone waala.
believe me I laughed for 2-3 minutes after reading your comment. Keep it up.:D
Visa Bulletin Gaand Mein Ley Lao Ab..... Kuch nahi hone waala.
believe me I laughed for 2-3 minutes after reading your comment. Keep it up.:D
hair Enchanted Arms a little on the
stucklabor
07-24 10:15 PM
.. there should definitely be some policy interpretation at the discretion of the USCIS
1) The law does not explicitly state that the visa number availability is a pre-requisite for filing the application
2) If you are interpreting it based on the words ....
"an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed"
Then according to 245(a)(2)....
"the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and "
....concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 should also be illegal because at the time of filing I-140 there is no determination of whether the alien is eligible to recieve the EB visa. If so how can USCIS allow filing of I-485 at that time.
Dude/Dudette, I give up. The alien's eligibility and admissibility is decided at I-485 stage - FBI name checks, medical tests ring a bell? The law explicitly states that visa number availabililty is a pre-requisite for the adjustment of status application in 245(a)(3). If you can't understand - or choose to refuse to understand - plain English, have fun arguing with yourself.
1) The law does not explicitly state that the visa number availability is a pre-requisite for filing the application
2) If you are interpreting it based on the words ....
"an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed"
Then according to 245(a)(2)....
"the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and "
....concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 should also be illegal because at the time of filing I-140 there is no determination of whether the alien is eligible to recieve the EB visa. If so how can USCIS allow filing of I-485 at that time.
Dude/Dudette, I give up. The alien's eligibility and admissibility is decided at I-485 stage - FBI name checks, medical tests ring a bell? The law explicitly states that visa number availabililty is a pre-requisite for the adjustment of status application in 245(a)(3). If you can't understand - or choose to refuse to understand - plain English, have fun arguing with yourself.
more...
softcrowd
03-18 09:37 AM
I am 04/2004 EB2 and I just hope that Ron's prediction comes true.
One thing about his April PD movement "prediction" - Ron Gotcher never predicted that..He just said he passed on what he heard from an official.
But in this case (July one), it looks like his prediction!! So lets see!
One thing about his April PD movement "prediction" - Ron Gotcher never predicted that..He just said he passed on what he heard from an official.
But in this case (July one), it looks like his prediction!! So lets see!
hot Enchanted Arms Cheats, Codes,
cygent
03-21 04:35 PM
Hello all,
How do you determine if the category filed is EB2 or EB3? How can you find that out from which document?
Thanks!
How do you determine if the category filed is EB2 or EB3? How can you find that out from which document?
Thanks!
more...
house Enchanted Arms contains so
akilhere
10-14 10:09 AM
That's better. Collect the radiologist's report and send them at the earliest. Make sure your attorney sends it to addressed mentioned in the letter. Someone's attorney in this forum used FedEx's service (sent to non-PO Box address) and took longer time to reach right department.
As I said earlier, my doctor was not in USCIS's current list. So, I had to redo everything. My status has changed to 'Respone to RFE review'
FeedFront
I got the radiologist's report. Its on an official letterhead of the hospital and it includes his findings, recommendations etc. but it doesn't contain his signature. It only says "Read By: Dr. XXX and Prepared by: Dr. XXX. Nothing is handwritten, its all in print and the top portion says Radiology Report. It includes all my information including my DOB etc.
But the RFE says that the Radiologist's report should be on an official letterhead and signed by the Radiologist.
When i called the Doctor's office, they said that these documents are received electronically and are E-Signed so there won't be any signatures as such. They have mailed me a sealed copy but I'm wondering if this will be a problem since it doesn't contain the Radiologists's signature.
Any inputs on this would be appreciated.
Thanks,
As I said earlier, my doctor was not in USCIS's current list. So, I had to redo everything. My status has changed to 'Respone to RFE review'
FeedFront
I got the radiologist's report. Its on an official letterhead of the hospital and it includes his findings, recommendations etc. but it doesn't contain his signature. It only says "Read By: Dr. XXX and Prepared by: Dr. XXX. Nothing is handwritten, its all in print and the top portion says Radiology Report. It includes all my information including my DOB etc.
But the RFE says that the Radiologist's report should be on an official letterhead and signed by the Radiologist.
When i called the Doctor's office, they said that these documents are received electronically and are E-Signed so there won't be any signatures as such. They have mailed me a sealed copy but I'm wondering if this will be a problem since it doesn't contain the Radiologists's signature.
Any inputs on this would be appreciated.
Thanks,
tattoo Enchanted Arms Cheats, Codes,
paskal
07-03 09:13 PM
If this is true, then everyone who thinks this is unfair must write letters to USCIS, Ombudsman, WH etc
USCIS does not read our forums and will not take action from a forum post.
If you see something wrong, and you feel strongly about it, Do not let it happen.
In hindsight I think we should have done it for labor substitution too.
nixstor, you right of course. i was not comparing it to labor sub, just pointing out that there are a myriad of loopholes. the EB1C is hardly meant for employees already here- sending them out and bringing them back is legal- yet its very much a loophole being exploited. in many cases - again just my anecdotal observation, the position is not just a fake manager- yet the position is not the real "concept" of a multinational manager either. i have seen attorneys in big corporate firms getting EB1c by this method.
i do believe though that over time USCIS has become aware of this activity. A little skimming of EB1c posts on reveals a great deal of new scrutiny for the EB1c 1-140 petitions. The same is true when an entirely new employee is being brought in. they are asking a lot of questions on company structures, hierarchy and individual roles and responsibilities....
USCIS does not read our forums and will not take action from a forum post.
If you see something wrong, and you feel strongly about it, Do not let it happen.
In hindsight I think we should have done it for labor substitution too.
nixstor, you right of course. i was not comparing it to labor sub, just pointing out that there are a myriad of loopholes. the EB1C is hardly meant for employees already here- sending them out and bringing them back is legal- yet its very much a loophole being exploited. in many cases - again just my anecdotal observation, the position is not just a fake manager- yet the position is not the real "concept" of a multinational manager either. i have seen attorneys in big corporate firms getting EB1c by this method.
i do believe though that over time USCIS has become aware of this activity. A little skimming of EB1c posts on reveals a great deal of new scrutiny for the EB1c 1-140 petitions. The same is true when an entirely new employee is being brought in. they are asking a lot of questions on company structures, hierarchy and individual roles and responsibilities....
more...
pictures Enchanted Arms - Xbox 360
nagio
02-20 12:50 PM
Hi Vin,
I am willing to donate 13,194 Korean airline miles. I have PM'd you with details. I appreciate your help.
Thanks,
Naga
I am willing to donate 13,194 Korean airline miles. I have PM'd you with details. I appreciate your help.
Thanks,
Naga
dresses Enchanted Arms Preview - The
andycool
03-16 02:04 PM
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
more...
makeup Enchanted Arms
nc14
09-10 10:43 AM
How many posts are required to access chat feature?
It seems I don't have the number of posts necessary to log in. Is there anyway I can just view the live updates?
It seems I don't have the number of posts necessary to log in. Is there anyway I can just view the live updates?
girlfriend Enchanted Arms - PS3
Green.Tech
03-03 03:56 PM
Consider this:
Even though IV has 25000 "registered" members. There are only 400-500 visitors. The same people visit the site often. The number of visit dramatically increase if there are newsworthy events affecting everyone is happening.
So the sample size is NOT 25K but around 500, based on the daily visits.
This of course is not a whole lot but Idea is not be statistically correct but to feed newsworthy information and here are the facts.
a) 1 MM people in the line for EB green card
b) All of them highly skilled with at least bachelors
c) Average income 75K +
d) Average family size: Slightly more than 2 .
e) Life Dream : The American Dream
f) Bottleneck to the life dream : The long ,excruciating backlogs.
How about another option for people who are going to buy shortly even though their GC approval is far far away?
Even though IV has 25000 "registered" members. There are only 400-500 visitors. The same people visit the site often. The number of visit dramatically increase if there are newsworthy events affecting everyone is happening.
So the sample size is NOT 25K but around 500, based on the daily visits.
This of course is not a whole lot but Idea is not be statistically correct but to feed newsworthy information and here are the facts.
a) 1 MM people in the line for EB green card
b) All of them highly skilled with at least bachelors
c) Average income 75K +
d) Average family size: Slightly more than 2 .
e) Life Dream : The American Dream
f) Bottleneck to the life dream : The long ,excruciating backlogs.
How about another option for people who are going to buy shortly even though their GC approval is far far away?
hairstyles Enchanted Arms - Xbox 360
nomi
12-11 02:32 PM
I think we should spend more time to explore this option too. If USCIS make this rule which alllow us to file I-485 with out PD current that will be big relief for us.
abhijitp
07-25 05:25 PM
If you see the letter and spirit of clause in the said notification, an employment letter is not required and adjudicator has to send RFE if he feels required. File with latest paystubs. If RFE sent to you , then again file latest paystub to show that you was in employment with that employer from the date of filing 485 petition and for at least another 6-7 months further to that date.
Having looked at older posts (here or other threads) by Pappu and others, I think although adjudicator will usually send an RFE there is no guarantee it won't be outright rejected. Secondly, in which application form/ press release etc is ANYTHING AT ALL mentioned about paystubs? On the other hand, the I-485 applocation form instructions clearly say the employment letter is required.
Having looked at older posts (here or other threads) by Pappu and others, I think although adjudicator will usually send an RFE there is no guarantee it won't be outright rejected. Secondly, in which application form/ press release etc is ANYTHING AT ALL mentioned about paystubs? On the other hand, the I-485 applocation form instructions clearly say the employment letter is required.
mmanurker
07-01 02:46 PM
This is the response I got from NJ senator:
Dear Mr. Manurker:
Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to Senator Bernard Sanders' amendment to the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010. Your opinion is very important to me, and I acknowledge your concerns about this issue.
The amendment offered by Senator Sanders requires employers to certify that they have not and will not lay off a large number of employees before they are allowed to employ foreign workers. I strongly believe that priority should be given to American workers. However sometimes there are no available American citizens to fill key high-tech or high-skilled jobs. It is important for us to make sure that American citizens are being considered first to fill these roles and that employers are not hiring foreign nationals while laying off our own citizens.
Again, I thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind. I encourage you to contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Dear Mr. Manurker:
Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to Senator Bernard Sanders' amendment to the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010. Your opinion is very important to me, and I acknowledge your concerns about this issue.
The amendment offered by Senator Sanders requires employers to certify that they have not and will not lay off a large number of employees before they are allowed to employ foreign workers. I strongly believe that priority should be given to American workers. However sometimes there are no available American citizens to fill key high-tech or high-skilled jobs. It is important for us to make sure that American citizens are being considered first to fill these roles and that employers are not hiring foreign nationals while laying off our own citizens.
Again, I thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind. I encourage you to contact me if I can be of further assistance.
No comments:
Post a Comment