1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Analysis And Discussion Of White House Report

Discussion in 'General discussion about executive action' started by Ron Gotcher, Jul 15, 2015.

  1. Ron Gotcher

    Ron Gotcher Attorney at Law

    Messages:
    35,917
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    Trophy Points:
    25,213
    That is an irresponsible statement. Far more employers and lawyers want to see this happen than those who don't. Do you think that employers enjoy paying enormous fees for the privilege of hiring workers? When this goes through, the volume of H filings will drop because there will be an enormous number of "free agents" available to hire without having to go through immigration paperwork. As for lawyers, I don't know of a single lawyer who opposes this. Everyone thinks that it is a good move.

    I didn't get into immigration to make money. If I wanted more money I could have gone into mergers and acquisitions, or another lucrative practice area. I used to be a partner in the world's largest law firm. I had ample opportunity to move into any practice area that I wanted. I practice in this field because I want to help people. For someone who does not know me to come along and make this kind of allegation is offensive in the extreme.
     
  2. cross

    cross Junior Member

    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    664
    Trophy Points:
    93
    That's exactly what is missing there, leadership who is not afraid to admit that we are in the 21st century.
    There are plenty of examples in industry (Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Larry/Sergey) where one or two people have made a huge impact on the world as such by their actions. I am not looking for a messiah for immigration but someone with some commonsense leadership views who thinks pragmatically and resolves long standing issues.
     
  3. Kamakazee

    Kamakazee Super Moderator

    Messages:
    2,698
    Likes Received:
    1,368
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They are a federal government agency. They will only go as far as the WH directs them.
     
  4. Ron Gotcher

    Ron Gotcher Attorney at Law

    Messages:
    35,917
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    Trophy Points:
    25,213
    The problem there is the federal bureaucracy. Because they have both civil service and union protection, it is almost impossible to file them. USCIS officers who have been caught red handed soliciting bribes have to be allowed to continue to work and draw salary until they are actually convicted. No matter what HQ tells them to do, they can go their own way without penalty if that is what they want.

    I sincerely believe that outsourcing is the only hope. Fire all of the adjudicators and hire contractors to replace them. Audit the work of the contractors to make sure their decisions are in compliance with the law. If a backlog develops, hire more contractors.
     
    soopergal and jdoe99 like this.
  5. ashnov2012

    ashnov2012 New Member

    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    3
  6. cross

    cross Junior Member

    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    664
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I understand that. But if a USCIS head makes a statement that we are going to cut back on the paper work and start work on making more applications electronic, why would anyone oppose that? They will in fact be lauded to take the initiative. Why do they have to wait for a WH directive to modernize their IT systems?
    Maybe this is not an apples to orange comparison but people are being sold guns with a quick 15 minute check through the FBI NICS system.
     
  7. Legal Immigrant

    Legal Immigrant Banned

    Messages:
    760
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is the irony. No single person even wants to change anything related to legals.
     
  8. Legal Immigrant

    Legal Immigrant Banned

    Messages:
    760
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agree with you that NOT all employers and lawyers are same and generalized allegations are not good. But, bad ones do exist, Ron. You can't deny this.

    But, someone saying such thing about you doesn't know anything about you off course.
     
  9. Ron Gotcher

    Ron Gotcher Attorney at Law

    Messages:
    35,917
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    Trophy Points:
    25,213
    Under the law, if someone remains in the U.S. in "unlawful presence" for more than six months, they face a three year bar on returning. If they stay more than a year, it becomes a ten year bar. For some time now, the administration has allowed immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, who are subject to these bars, to remain in the U.S. while they apply for waivers of the applicable bar. This proposal would extend that benefit to others, including employment based immigrants who are subject to the bars.
     
  10. Ron Gotcher

    Ron Gotcher Attorney at Law

    Messages:
    35,917
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    Trophy Points:
    25,213
    I don't deny it at all. There are quite a few bad apples. At the same time, I encounter prospective clients who lie to me about their backgrounds and others who have committed serious fraud. Notwithstanding that, I don't make the generalization that all foreign nationals are liars who commit fraud. That would be ridiculous.
     
    GeorgeCostanza, cuckoo, Mayur and 2 others like this.
  11. vr67

    vr67 New Member

    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Is this possibly a way to allow H1Bs to stay on in USA in case of lay-offs while they look for a new job?
     
  12. ashnov2012

    ashnov2012 New Member

    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Thank you Ron. Sorry for being a novice here - But does this mean can a person who is waiting for his priority date to be current in EB2/EB3 on H1 and does not work for certain time (lose status) but later gets a job in similar occupation and applies a new H1 and file AOS . Confusing to me ???
     
  13. Ron Gotcher

    Ron Gotcher Attorney at Law

    Messages:
    35,917
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    Trophy Points:
    25,213
    From what I understand, they are going to change the rule to allow H1Bs a gap of either 30 or 60 days between jobs.
     
  14. jdoe99

    jdoe99 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    28
    It was in jest directed at Ron. I dont know why you extrapolated that to the President and then a grandstanding IV type preach/rant.
     
  15. Ron Gotcher

    Ron Gotcher Attorney at Law

    Messages:
    35,917
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    Trophy Points:
    25,213
    And I took it as a jest. Had I actually gone to work for the INS, I doubt that I would have lasted very long. My big mouth and intolerance for idiots would have gotten me fired (those jobs don't have civil service protection, unlike adjudicators).
     
    jdoe99 likes this.
  16. ashnov2012

    ashnov2012 New Member

    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    3
    They did not say anything about the 30-60 day window in the proposed rule which is open to comments now. Does it needs to be included Ron ?
     
  17. Ron Gotcher

    Ron Gotcher Attorney at Law

    Messages:
    35,917
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    Trophy Points:
    25,213
    I've seen it referenced several times. I also know that there is a lot of buzz about it within the group doing rulemaking at USCIS.
     
  18. ARam

    ARam Guru

    Messages:
    882
    Likes Received:
    929
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I did see the joke in it but my post was directed to a few other posts from this and other threads about how the administration and the president somehow didnt know what needed to be done and if x did y then we'd all be singing lullabies with the fairies of fate in the meadows right now. Was just trying to make the same case with Ron being in USCIS...even though he has his brains and heart in the right place he probably wouldn't be the change agent he is today...for all we know he would have been shown the door for speaking his mind...but I see your point..no rant intended.
     
    jdoe99 likes this.
  19. Kamakazee

    Kamakazee Super Moderator

    Messages:
    2,698
    Likes Received:
    1,368
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ron, if this relief is given for 30-60 days then isn't the relief for "unlawful presence" rule which has 6 months and 1 year being added to employment based immigrant contradictory? Let's say someone does not get another job in 60 days, as per the first rule he is now accruing "unlawful presence" but under the second law, he is okay for a year? So, which one is it?
     
  20. Ron Gotcher

    Ron Gotcher Attorney at Law

    Messages:
    35,917
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    Trophy Points:
    25,213
    Unlawful presence only accrues after an I-94 expires. It is different from illegal status, which could occur when someone stops working. In this case, they are going to allow H1Bs to have a gap in employment, legally, without going into unlawful status.
     

Share This Page