One might ignore land-scams of Naidu and support him.
Lets make these guys fine tune this immigration system which is actually against the free market capitalist principles of this country.
USCIS wastes more annual visa numbers due to these country caps. There should be a FIFO system without any country of birth barriers. There is no logic with Employers being forced to wait for visa numbers to comply with diversity. If ROW countries have less people with marketable skills or less people who want to work outside their countries,it is not the problem of Chinese or Indians. Who is preventing people of ROW for applying H1b or Green card EB ? Employers look for availability of talent not for country of origin and anyone who competes in the global market wins. When someone says let business hire the "best and brightest", that's my problem, he implies the best and brightest are concentrated in only two countries so that's what's insane, that's why he won't be taken seriously. We can agree business may hire whoever they please but don't pretend that they only hire based on SKILL. People are getting fooled by the employers, and ultimately its making the retrogression more worse.Īgain you are saying it's a SKILL cap. In short the Labour substitution rule is in a mess and is getting miused a lot. This could be debatable and could have other consequences, as the INS could invalidate any GC application that is been pending for more than the this duration. There should be a limit to the time until which a Labor can be substituted. If an employee invokes the AC21 then that Labor should not be allowed to be substituted. Currently this is not done at the time the Labor is substituted, therefore the resulting 485 filing just amounts to add up into the backlog of Visa Number requirement, until the priority date becomes current for this 485. If so then the Labor should be rejected immediately. When a Labor is substituted it should be verified immediately to find if there is any I-140 or I-485 that is pending based on this Labor. This in itself will solve 90% of the problems related to retrogression. It should not be be the date when the Labor was originally filed. The Priority Date for a substituted Labor should the date when the Labor is substituted (or the I-140 filing date). First thing in the Labor Substitution reform is related to the Priority date. And in turn add to retregression.įollowing reforms are needed in Labor Substitution. I know that all the companies/employers and the lawyers community are against removing the Labor substitution, therefore it will never be removed, but atleast it should be reformed so that it can be better policed so that no one is able to misuse it and play with peoples lives. This is resutling in a lot of problems for even those employees whose Labor's get substituted even if they are still working in the same company.Īny effort to reform immigration should start with first reforming the Labor Substitution rule (if not completely abolish). The INS does not have the right tools to police the misue of this rule. Abolishing Labor Substitution will itself take care of every retrogression problem. No one seems to be talking about the real problem that is Labor Substitution. Lobbying for more Visa's and other things that were part of the S.1932 bill are fine, however these things are not going to solve the retrogression problem even if such a bill gets passed. I have been reading a lot in the other forum and here about the ways to cure retrogression. I just got to this site via from immigration portal.
I dont know how you got the number 37000. The total numbers of perm certified for india from March 2005 - March 2006 is ~ 11000 this includes all EB cases.
If EB2 is 50%, we are talking ~19000, with an avg of 2.5 GCs per PERM, we need 47,500 GCs between Mar 05 and Jan 07. Total PERM approvals with PD between march 2005 and Dec 2006 ~ 37000 my estimate is around 12000 for those 3 months of 2006.(total number of certified PERMs between - = 13873) My analysis from those mdb files: (they are tricky because the data is for FY2005 while the priority date calculations we are doing are for the calendar year)Ĭalendar year 2005 ( received date between - ) = 8645Īfter this it gets bad since the data has no receipt date, only certified date.