Macaca
04-22 09:07 AM
Passing On H-1b Costs to the Employee? (http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/FeesArticle07.18.2006.pdf) -- Smart Business Practice or DOL Violation?, by Michael F. Hammond and Damaris Del Valle
After all the costs associated with an H-1B petition are totaled, the sum can be alarming. In order to offset this cost, some employers ask that the beneficiary, the employee who is being hired, reimburse the company in whole or in part. Which costs may and may not be paid by the beneficiary can be a tricky matter. What follows is an analysis of H-1B costs and who may pay what.
All deductions from an H-1B worker’s pay fall into three categories: authorized, unauthorized, or prohibited. Authorized deductions can be taken without worry of whether or not such a deduction will lower the employee’s rate of pay below the required wage rate. Unauthorized deductions, counter to what the term may connote, can be taken from an employee’s wage but are considered non-payment and are only allowed if the beneficiary’s wage rate, after the deduction(s), is greater than the required amount listed on the Labor Condition Application (LCA). Unauthorized deductions cannot push the employee’s wage below either the prevailing wage rate or the actual wage rate, i.e. salaries of those similarly employed and qualified at the work site. Prohibited deductions may not be taken from the employee’s pay regardless of the effect they would have on the required wage rate.
The most straightforward of the deductions is the prohibited deduction. The Training Fee associated with the H-1B petition is the only prohibited deduction associated with the cost of filing an H-1B petition. Rajan v. International Business Solutions, Ltd. and the language in the relevant regulation make it very clear that the Training Fee is to be paid by the employer or a third party; it is not to be reimbursed in part or whole by the employee. This fee must be completely shouldered by the employer or a party who is not the employee.
Deductions are considered by the Department of Labor (DOL) to be authorized if:
The deduction is reported as such on the employer’s payroll records,
The employee has voluntarily agreed to the deduction and such agreement is documented in writing (a job offer which carries a deduction as a condition of employment does not meet this requirement),
The deduction is for a matter that is principally for the benefit of the employee,
The deduction is not a recoupment of the employer’s business expenses,
The amount deducted does not exceed the fair market value or the actual cost (whichever is lower) of the matter covered, and
The amount deducted is not more than 25% of the employee’s disposable earning.
An Education Evaluation arguably qualifies as an authorized deduction. Similar to a translation fee, which is payable by the employee, the employee is benefiting from the evaluation and will be able to use it in the future in his/her private capacity if s/he so wishes. Of course, if the employee is paying for the evaluation, then s/he must be able to acquire a copy of the evaluation so that the future benefit upon which his/her payment is presumed is a real possibility.
Attorney’s fees associated with obtaining H-4 status for family members accompanying the Beneficiary may qualify as authorized deductions since the Beneficiary is the party who primarily benefits from such fees. In addition, attorney fees associated with visa issuance, assuming that international travel is not a requirement for the position, could be properly considered as authorized deductions. In order to properly deduct the attorney fees associated with these processes, it is important that the attorney break down the specifics of how much is being charged for each element of the H-1B process- this will allow the employer to deduct those fees associated with the retention of the visas for the accompanying family members without concerning itself with the deduction requirements necessary for unauthorized deductions.
The circumstances surrounding the Premium Processing Fee determine if deduction of the fee is to qualify as authorized or unauthorized. While the speedy decision that the Premium Processing Fee guarantees often benefits both the employer and the employee, it is important to take notice of which party requests and benefits most from premium processing. If the employee has decided to utilize premium processing for his/her own personal benefit, then the employer may be reimbursed by the employee in accordance with the requirements established by the DOL for authorized deductions. If the employer is the party desiring premium process and who will benefit from such processing, then any deductions from the employee’s pay are unauthorized and, as such Deduction of attorney’s fees associated with the filing of the LCA or H-1B and the Base Fee (or I-129 Fee) are considered to be unauthorized. These fees are considered to be the employer’s business expenses and, for this reason, are not authorized deductions. These fees may be deducted from the employee’s pay so long as they do not drop the rate of pay below the required wage rate.
It is not clear whether or not the Fraud Fee which was implemented in March 2005 is unauthorized or prohibited. The language of the act regarding the Fraud Fee states that “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fraud prevention and detection fee on an employer filing a petition.”10 Almost identical language is used in the Act to refer to the Training Fee.11 Such similarity could be read to mean that the restrictions of the Training Fee also apply to the Fraud Fee. However, 20 C.F.R. 655 is explicit in saying that the employee cannot pay the Training Fee; no such statement is made regarding the Fraud Fee. The regulation regarding the Training Fee, 20 C.F.R. 655, predates the creation of the Fraud Fee, which may explain this discrepancy. Nonetheless, the language referring to the Fraud Fee is not explicitly prohibitive and an employer may decide to be reimbursed by the employee. If an employer chooses to do so, any deductions from the employee’s salary to pay for this fee must meet the DOL requirements for unauthorized deductions. 12
Before any payments are made by the employee or deductions are taken from his/her pay to reimburse the employer, it must be determined if such deduction is permitted and if so, whether or not it is authorized or unauthorized. Once these preliminary determinations are made, appropriate steps must be taken to ensure that the DOL’s requirements are met. As a practical matter, there are very few circumstances in which the prospective employee could legally be made to pay for the costs associated with the H-1b process without an employer risking non-compliance and causing significant record keeping.
After all the costs associated with an H-1B petition are totaled, the sum can be alarming. In order to offset this cost, some employers ask that the beneficiary, the employee who is being hired, reimburse the company in whole or in part. Which costs may and may not be paid by the beneficiary can be a tricky matter. What follows is an analysis of H-1B costs and who may pay what.
All deductions from an H-1B worker’s pay fall into three categories: authorized, unauthorized, or prohibited. Authorized deductions can be taken without worry of whether or not such a deduction will lower the employee’s rate of pay below the required wage rate. Unauthorized deductions, counter to what the term may connote, can be taken from an employee’s wage but are considered non-payment and are only allowed if the beneficiary’s wage rate, after the deduction(s), is greater than the required amount listed on the Labor Condition Application (LCA). Unauthorized deductions cannot push the employee’s wage below either the prevailing wage rate or the actual wage rate, i.e. salaries of those similarly employed and qualified at the work site. Prohibited deductions may not be taken from the employee’s pay regardless of the effect they would have on the required wage rate.
The most straightforward of the deductions is the prohibited deduction. The Training Fee associated with the H-1B petition is the only prohibited deduction associated with the cost of filing an H-1B petition. Rajan v. International Business Solutions, Ltd. and the language in the relevant regulation make it very clear that the Training Fee is to be paid by the employer or a third party; it is not to be reimbursed in part or whole by the employee. This fee must be completely shouldered by the employer or a party who is not the employee.
Deductions are considered by the Department of Labor (DOL) to be authorized if:
The deduction is reported as such on the employer’s payroll records,
The employee has voluntarily agreed to the deduction and such agreement is documented in writing (a job offer which carries a deduction as a condition of employment does not meet this requirement),
The deduction is for a matter that is principally for the benefit of the employee,
The deduction is not a recoupment of the employer’s business expenses,
The amount deducted does not exceed the fair market value or the actual cost (whichever is lower) of the matter covered, and
The amount deducted is not more than 25% of the employee’s disposable earning.
An Education Evaluation arguably qualifies as an authorized deduction. Similar to a translation fee, which is payable by the employee, the employee is benefiting from the evaluation and will be able to use it in the future in his/her private capacity if s/he so wishes. Of course, if the employee is paying for the evaluation, then s/he must be able to acquire a copy of the evaluation so that the future benefit upon which his/her payment is presumed is a real possibility.
Attorney’s fees associated with obtaining H-4 status for family members accompanying the Beneficiary may qualify as authorized deductions since the Beneficiary is the party who primarily benefits from such fees. In addition, attorney fees associated with visa issuance, assuming that international travel is not a requirement for the position, could be properly considered as authorized deductions. In order to properly deduct the attorney fees associated with these processes, it is important that the attorney break down the specifics of how much is being charged for each element of the H-1B process- this will allow the employer to deduct those fees associated with the retention of the visas for the accompanying family members without concerning itself with the deduction requirements necessary for unauthorized deductions.
The circumstances surrounding the Premium Processing Fee determine if deduction of the fee is to qualify as authorized or unauthorized. While the speedy decision that the Premium Processing Fee guarantees often benefits both the employer and the employee, it is important to take notice of which party requests and benefits most from premium processing. If the employee has decided to utilize premium processing for his/her own personal benefit, then the employer may be reimbursed by the employee in accordance with the requirements established by the DOL for authorized deductions. If the employer is the party desiring premium process and who will benefit from such processing, then any deductions from the employee’s pay are unauthorized and, as such Deduction of attorney’s fees associated with the filing of the LCA or H-1B and the Base Fee (or I-129 Fee) are considered to be unauthorized. These fees are considered to be the employer’s business expenses and, for this reason, are not authorized deductions. These fees may be deducted from the employee’s pay so long as they do not drop the rate of pay below the required wage rate.
It is not clear whether or not the Fraud Fee which was implemented in March 2005 is unauthorized or prohibited. The language of the act regarding the Fraud Fee states that “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fraud prevention and detection fee on an employer filing a petition.”10 Almost identical language is used in the Act to refer to the Training Fee.11 Such similarity could be read to mean that the restrictions of the Training Fee also apply to the Fraud Fee. However, 20 C.F.R. 655 is explicit in saying that the employee cannot pay the Training Fee; no such statement is made regarding the Fraud Fee. The regulation regarding the Training Fee, 20 C.F.R. 655, predates the creation of the Fraud Fee, which may explain this discrepancy. Nonetheless, the language referring to the Fraud Fee is not explicitly prohibitive and an employer may decide to be reimbursed by the employee. If an employer chooses to do so, any deductions from the employee’s salary to pay for this fee must meet the DOL requirements for unauthorized deductions. 12
Before any payments are made by the employee or deductions are taken from his/her pay to reimburse the employer, it must be determined if such deduction is permitted and if so, whether or not it is authorized or unauthorized. Once these preliminary determinations are made, appropriate steps must be taken to ensure that the DOL’s requirements are met. As a practical matter, there are very few circumstances in which the prospective employee could legally be made to pay for the costs associated with the H-1b process without an employer risking non-compliance and causing significant record keeping.
Irs
02-10 01:43 PM
key note....Document and have everything in writing/email/recording...
jvordar
04-07 05:48 PM
ok gurus here's my situation..
1) Employer A filed my green card and I140 is approved and its been more than 180 days since 485 is filed.. no issue here... recently got my 3-year H1 extension from employer A till 2011. this extension is for 7th, 8th and 9th year... so have already crossed 6 year limit.
2) got an offer and accepted the offer from employer B and employer A does not provide any info regaring labor or I-140...
3) Since H1 extension is based on my green card application, to do a transfer or renewal, copies of I140 and labor is required (according to company B's lawyer)
4) So in this case i'm forced to use EAD and company B's lawyer are evaluating if old and new job description are same or similar...
so now my question is, is it true that transfer/renew of H1 after 6 years without the copy of I140 or labor from employer other than the one filed for your green card, not allowed? is there anything that can be done in this case?
thanks guys..
1) Employer A filed my green card and I140 is approved and its been more than 180 days since 485 is filed.. no issue here... recently got my 3-year H1 extension from employer A till 2011. this extension is for 7th, 8th and 9th year... so have already crossed 6 year limit.
2) got an offer and accepted the offer from employer B and employer A does not provide any info regaring labor or I-140...
3) Since H1 extension is based on my green card application, to do a transfer or renewal, copies of I140 and labor is required (according to company B's lawyer)
4) So in this case i'm forced to use EAD and company B's lawyer are evaluating if old and new job description are same or similar...
so now my question is, is it true that transfer/renew of H1 after 6 years without the copy of I140 or labor from employer other than the one filed for your green card, not allowed? is there anything that can be done in this case?
thanks guys..
mdipi
11-02 08:40 PM
hahaha! lost this was by accident too! see i had to do an interview for a school so i was all dressed up, so i posed like a weather man for a pic....so i went to Weather.com and got a local map that i was going to use to put behind me. well the extract tool didnt do exactly what i wanted cause i had never used it, so i did it like a quick mask. so in the end of the filter it ended up making it like all 'rough' on the edges. so i brought the map in....scaled it to size on the screen (i sized it to the whole screen. oh by the way, after i imported the pic onto the new doc.,i difference clouded it).so after all that i put difference clouds on the map too. i changed the layer blend to color blend and vola. it looks cool w/burn too. i have been playing around ALOT w/it. i think it is a big step for me! :beam:
-mike:cyclops:
-mike:cyclops:
more...
h12gc
04-28 06:18 PM
Hi guys,
My details: EB2 NSC,Aug 2005 PD,1485 notice date: august 2nd 2007,140 approved,EAD valid till 2010 september.
I got an RFE on my I 485 on April 15th asking for employment letter from intended permanent employer.Last month my employer cancelled my H-1 Visa, I think that trigerred this RFE.Currently I'm on EAD.So I don't think It will hurt my status.
My Employer gave me the employment letter with same job title and duties as Labor certification.My Employer is an IT consulting firm.Currently I'm not on project with him.I'm benched for last few months.Since GC is future process he had issued employment letter.But Technically I'm with out pay stubs for few months.Does it hurt my GC process?
Also I spoke to my employer and he said given current market situation I can find a similar job with any employer and use my EAD he has no problems in supporting my GC process since it is future employment.My question is Can I work on contract to w-2 positions with any recruiting firms and not to file AC 21 with them since I have already have an offer from my own GC sponsered employer?
Can I take full time position with end client and not file AC 21 since I already have an offer letter from my current employer intending to hire me permanently once GC is approved.
In present market situation I'm finding positions which are asking for con_w2 or fulltime positions with the end clients.No corp to corp positions in IT industry.
Please any one advice me on this.
Thanks
h12gc
My details: EB2 NSC,Aug 2005 PD,1485 notice date: august 2nd 2007,140 approved,EAD valid till 2010 september.
I got an RFE on my I 485 on April 15th asking for employment letter from intended permanent employer.Last month my employer cancelled my H-1 Visa, I think that trigerred this RFE.Currently I'm on EAD.So I don't think It will hurt my status.
My Employer gave me the employment letter with same job title and duties as Labor certification.My Employer is an IT consulting firm.Currently I'm not on project with him.I'm benched for last few months.Since GC is future process he had issued employment letter.But Technically I'm with out pay stubs for few months.Does it hurt my GC process?
Also I spoke to my employer and he said given current market situation I can find a similar job with any employer and use my EAD he has no problems in supporting my GC process since it is future employment.My question is Can I work on contract to w-2 positions with any recruiting firms and not to file AC 21 with them since I have already have an offer from my own GC sponsered employer?
Can I take full time position with end client and not file AC 21 since I already have an offer letter from my current employer intending to hire me permanently once GC is approved.
In present market situation I'm finding positions which are asking for con_w2 or fulltime positions with the end clients.No corp to corp positions in IT industry.
Please any one advice me on this.
Thanks
h12gc
permfiling
10-27 01:27 PM
Congrats ! I guess the 3 green card is a magic number as mine was 10 yrs stay and 3 GC applications as well.
Did you receive the I-797 approval letter and at which service center was your case approved at.
Thanks
Hi All,
After 7 years of stay in the US and 3 green card applications later, I finally got the 485 approval e-mail.....aaahhha......I feel so relaxed now.
However I did not get any FP notice yet! Do you know if Biometrics is a requirement for issuing the physical green card and also any idea how long it takes to get the card from this point of time.
following is the current status in the online status of my 485:
Post Decision Activity
On October 26, 2010, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If you move before you receive the notice, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
For approved applications/petitions, post-decision activity may include USCIS sending notification of the approved application/petition to the National Visa Center or the Department of State. For denied applications/petitions, post-decision activity may include the processing of an appeal and/or motions to reopen or reconsider and revocations.
Did you receive the I-797 approval letter and at which service center was your case approved at.
Thanks
Hi All,
After 7 years of stay in the US and 3 green card applications later, I finally got the 485 approval e-mail.....aaahhha......I feel so relaxed now.
However I did not get any FP notice yet! Do you know if Biometrics is a requirement for issuing the physical green card and also any idea how long it takes to get the card from this point of time.
following is the current status in the online status of my 485:
Post Decision Activity
On October 26, 2010, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If you move before you receive the notice, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
For approved applications/petitions, post-decision activity may include USCIS sending notification of the approved application/petition to the National Visa Center or the Department of State. For denied applications/petitions, post-decision activity may include the processing of an appeal and/or motions to reopen or reconsider and revocations.
more...
.jpg "AJ: A Pictorial.")
gcseeker2002
04-09 05:35 PM
Good luck, atleast you are in EB2
DSJ
05-30 12:34 PM
Fee and Bee, there is some relation
==============
already discussed- admin
==============
already discussed- admin
more...
godbless
12-14 04:12 PM
Thanks all.
1) While filing AP online it asks if I want to add more filings. I want to add my wife's I-131 as well. Also my wife is a derivative beneficiary of my pending 485. So, my question is should my wife and my AP supporting documents be mailed in the same packet, even though I will
create 2 separate files in the same packet. Please advise. Else, how will they know that my wife's AP renewal is linked to mine.
2) There is a section which asks for the data of Intended departure. In paper based filing i would type unknown at present time. But in e-file, i cant type that in the date field. Can I leave this field and the length of stay blank ?
3) Part 7 Info for me asks only if my trip is for single entry or multiple entry. It does not ask for any supplemental Info. What is this supplemental info people talk about ?
__________________________________________________ _
1. Make 2 sets of documents and send them separately. They would know because you would send a copy of I 485 petition of your wife as well in her packet.
2. You can put some future date in there.
3. It will be multiple entry. You have to write some thing describing the need for this AP.
I hope it helps.
1) While filing AP online it asks if I want to add more filings. I want to add my wife's I-131 as well. Also my wife is a derivative beneficiary of my pending 485. So, my question is should my wife and my AP supporting documents be mailed in the same packet, even though I will
create 2 separate files in the same packet. Please advise. Else, how will they know that my wife's AP renewal is linked to mine.
2) There is a section which asks for the data of Intended departure. In paper based filing i would type unknown at present time. But in e-file, i cant type that in the date field. Can I leave this field and the length of stay blank ?
3) Part 7 Info for me asks only if my trip is for single entry or multiple entry. It does not ask for any supplemental Info. What is this supplemental info people talk about ?
__________________________________________________ _
1. Make 2 sets of documents and send them separately. They would know because you would send a copy of I 485 petition of your wife as well in her packet.
2. You can put some future date in there.
3. It will be multiple entry. You have to write some thing describing the need for this AP.
I hope it helps.
GCSOON-Ihope
01-19 05:58 PM
To say the least, this is a very strange way of saying that...they just mailed you your Approval Notice! This is just my understanding.
Anyway, you should get something in the mail very soon: let us now what it is!
Anyway, you should get something in the mail very soon: let us now what it is!
more...
Sakthisagar
12-01 02:44 PM
Issues facing the 2010 lame-duck session of Congress - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/lameduck/index.html)
1. Tax cuts
The most pressing issue in the lame-duck Congress sounds, at first glance, like a typo.
The federal government spends more money than it takes in. The two parties both agree that this is bad. Here�s what they can�t agree on: How much less should the government take in, in the years to come?
The debate is about income tax cuts, passed under President George W. Bush, which are due to expire Dec. 31. If that happens, a single person earning $46,000 a year might see his or her taxes jump $400, according to the nonprofit Tax Policy Center. A married couple earning a total of $440,000, on the other hand, might see an increase of $20,000.
Most Democrats want to extend tax cuts covering up to the first $250,000 that a family earns in a year. Republican leaders want to keep all the tax cuts, including those on income above $250,000. In a recession, they say, it doesn�t make sense to cut anyone�s taxes.
Congress and the president could agree to a temporary truce, extending all the tax cuts for a few years only. Or, as some Democrats have suggested recently, they could agree to keep tax cuts on incomes less than $1 million.
2. The New START treaty
The point of this U.S.-Russia treaty, signed but not yet ratified, is to continue the slow nuclear stand-down that has followed the Cold War. The two nations would agree to cut deployed long-range nuclear weapons by up to 30 percent and to allow each other to inspect the remaining stockpiles.
The prevention of nuclear armageddon still enjoys wide support on Capitol Hill.
But this treaty does not.
New START must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. That was no problem for two past treaties: the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, signed in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush, and the �Moscow Treaty,� signed in 2003 by President George W. Bush.
But now, Sen. John Kyl (Ariz.), the chamber�s second-ranking Republican, has held up the treaty�s passage. Kyl has said he wants more guarantees that the government will properly maintain the nuclear weapons that remain. He also thinks that the lame-duck session is too short a time to consider the issue.
The White House is now trying to work around Kyl to win over nine other Republican. If it can�t, there will be more Republicans � and perhaps more support for denying Obama a foreign policy win � in January.
3. �Don�t ask, don�t tell�
This 17-year-old rule, which bars gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military, has been under attack all year. This fall, a federal judge ruled the ban unconstitutional and ordered it scrapped. A higher court reinstated the ban while it considers the matter on appeal.
And on Tuesday, a Pentagon report concluded that ending the ban would pose a low risk to military readiness. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said that the repeal of the rule �should be done.�
But �don�t ask, don�t tell� isn�t dead yet and could outlive the lame-duck session.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) could bring it up for a vote on the floor this month. But the ascendant GOP is in no mood to cooperate. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says he�s still worried about the effect on morale, and other Republican leaders say the whole issue is a distraction from their top priority � job creation.
4. The �Continuing resolution�
A continuing resolution (known in Hill jargon as a �CR�) is a bill that�s introduced when Congress can�t agree on a full budget for the federal government.
Instead, it passes a bill to temporarily �continue� funding federal agencies at their present rates.
Congress must pass a new continuing resolution before Friday. If it doesn�t, the government will shut down � as it did in 1995 during a budget showdown between President Bill Clinton and congressional Republicans.
The sticking point is Republican demands to shrink federal spending back to 2008 levels. But a shutdown still seems unlikely; while a lot of voters want smaller government, very few seem to want no government.
Signs from the Hill indicate legislators will beat Friday�s deadline and pass a resolution good for another few weeks, at least.
5. Unemployment benefits
Another looming deadline. On Tuesday, emergency unemployment insurance � he federal checks given to the jobless � expired. If nothing is done to extend the benefits, advocates say as many as 3 million people will see their checks cut off by the end of January.
Some Republicans have voiced concerns about the high cost of these benefits. In the middle of last month, the House failed to approve a plan to extend them, with all but 11 Democrats voting for it and all but 21 Republicans voting against it.
6. Childhood nutrition
On Wednesday, House Democratic leaders plan to call a vote that could be a measure of the muscle they�ve got left. At issue: a bill that would feed schoolchildren better food.
If they can�t win on that, it could be a long month.
The bill is intended to give more poor children access to subsidized meals at school. It also would improve the quality of those meals and give more federal money to school districts that comply with higher nutrition standards.
�Kids that have food insecurity learn at a slower rate than their peers,� House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Tuesday. �Food insecurity� is Washington-speak for �hunger.�
The bill passed the Senate unanimously. But it will face some Republican opposition in the House from members who say it will impose more costs on struggling school systems.
7. The DREAM Act
This bill is aimed at illegal immigrants who came to this country as children. If they go to college or join the military as adults, it would give them a chance to obtain legal residency.
As attitudes toward illegal immigrants have hardened, support for the bill has collapsed among Republicans and many Democrats. To them, it looks like a kind of amnesty for lawbreakers.
On Tuesday, Reid could promise only a �test vote� on the issue: he would bring the issue to the Senate floor, and take his chances. The implicit message was that Reid might lose � but lose in a way that showed Hispanic voters he was trying.
1. Tax cuts
The most pressing issue in the lame-duck Congress sounds, at first glance, like a typo.
The federal government spends more money than it takes in. The two parties both agree that this is bad. Here�s what they can�t agree on: How much less should the government take in, in the years to come?
The debate is about income tax cuts, passed under President George W. Bush, which are due to expire Dec. 31. If that happens, a single person earning $46,000 a year might see his or her taxes jump $400, according to the nonprofit Tax Policy Center. A married couple earning a total of $440,000, on the other hand, might see an increase of $20,000.
Most Democrats want to extend tax cuts covering up to the first $250,000 that a family earns in a year. Republican leaders want to keep all the tax cuts, including those on income above $250,000. In a recession, they say, it doesn�t make sense to cut anyone�s taxes.
Congress and the president could agree to a temporary truce, extending all the tax cuts for a few years only. Or, as some Democrats have suggested recently, they could agree to keep tax cuts on incomes less than $1 million.
2. The New START treaty
The point of this U.S.-Russia treaty, signed but not yet ratified, is to continue the slow nuclear stand-down that has followed the Cold War. The two nations would agree to cut deployed long-range nuclear weapons by up to 30 percent and to allow each other to inspect the remaining stockpiles.
The prevention of nuclear armageddon still enjoys wide support on Capitol Hill.
But this treaty does not.
New START must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. That was no problem for two past treaties: the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, signed in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush, and the �Moscow Treaty,� signed in 2003 by President George W. Bush.
But now, Sen. John Kyl (Ariz.), the chamber�s second-ranking Republican, has held up the treaty�s passage. Kyl has said he wants more guarantees that the government will properly maintain the nuclear weapons that remain. He also thinks that the lame-duck session is too short a time to consider the issue.
The White House is now trying to work around Kyl to win over nine other Republican. If it can�t, there will be more Republicans � and perhaps more support for denying Obama a foreign policy win � in January.
3. �Don�t ask, don�t tell�
This 17-year-old rule, which bars gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military, has been under attack all year. This fall, a federal judge ruled the ban unconstitutional and ordered it scrapped. A higher court reinstated the ban while it considers the matter on appeal.
And on Tuesday, a Pentagon report concluded that ending the ban would pose a low risk to military readiness. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said that the repeal of the rule �should be done.�
But �don�t ask, don�t tell� isn�t dead yet and could outlive the lame-duck session.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) could bring it up for a vote on the floor this month. But the ascendant GOP is in no mood to cooperate. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says he�s still worried about the effect on morale, and other Republican leaders say the whole issue is a distraction from their top priority � job creation.
4. The �Continuing resolution�
A continuing resolution (known in Hill jargon as a �CR�) is a bill that�s introduced when Congress can�t agree on a full budget for the federal government.
Instead, it passes a bill to temporarily �continue� funding federal agencies at their present rates.
Congress must pass a new continuing resolution before Friday. If it doesn�t, the government will shut down � as it did in 1995 during a budget showdown between President Bill Clinton and congressional Republicans.
The sticking point is Republican demands to shrink federal spending back to 2008 levels. But a shutdown still seems unlikely; while a lot of voters want smaller government, very few seem to want no government.
Signs from the Hill indicate legislators will beat Friday�s deadline and pass a resolution good for another few weeks, at least.
5. Unemployment benefits
Another looming deadline. On Tuesday, emergency unemployment insurance � he federal checks given to the jobless � expired. If nothing is done to extend the benefits, advocates say as many as 3 million people will see their checks cut off by the end of January.
Some Republicans have voiced concerns about the high cost of these benefits. In the middle of last month, the House failed to approve a plan to extend them, with all but 11 Democrats voting for it and all but 21 Republicans voting against it.
6. Childhood nutrition
On Wednesday, House Democratic leaders plan to call a vote that could be a measure of the muscle they�ve got left. At issue: a bill that would feed schoolchildren better food.
If they can�t win on that, it could be a long month.
The bill is intended to give more poor children access to subsidized meals at school. It also would improve the quality of those meals and give more federal money to school districts that comply with higher nutrition standards.
�Kids that have food insecurity learn at a slower rate than their peers,� House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Tuesday. �Food insecurity� is Washington-speak for �hunger.�
The bill passed the Senate unanimously. But it will face some Republican opposition in the House from members who say it will impose more costs on struggling school systems.
7. The DREAM Act
This bill is aimed at illegal immigrants who came to this country as children. If they go to college or join the military as adults, it would give them a chance to obtain legal residency.
As attitudes toward illegal immigrants have hardened, support for the bill has collapsed among Republicans and many Democrats. To them, it looks like a kind of amnesty for lawbreakers.
On Tuesday, Reid could promise only a �test vote� on the issue: he would bring the issue to the Senate floor, and take his chances. The implicit message was that Reid might lose � but lose in a way that showed Hispanic voters he was trying.
bitu72
01-10 11:25 AM
threat of losing your job is very high..as every prediction says its going to be more bad..
i come here every hr to see any updates or news... but dont write as not sure what effect can we make..obama is more pressed with economic recovery and more immigrants are not what they want..but still i am optimistic with S9 bill intoduced
i come here every hr to see any updates or news... but dont write as not sure what effect can we make..obama is more pressed with economic recovery and more immigrants are not what they want..but still i am optimistic with S9 bill intoduced
more...
ItIsNotFunny
09-23 10:15 AM
I don't get it - where are the rest of the 2468 members?
Can we send out a blast (through Pappu) to everyone on this forum?
Our need will be felt much more strongly is ALL of us participate - right guys? I'm kind of shocked that the number is only 32!!!!
Those are the people who don't deserve GC!
Can we send out a blast (through Pappu) to everyone on this forum?
Our need will be felt much more strongly is ALL of us participate - right guys? I'm kind of shocked that the number is only 32!!!!
Those are the people who don't deserve GC!
waitnwatch
05-25 07:57 PM
`(G) Aliens who have earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math and have been working in a related field in the United States under a nonimmigrant visa during the 3-year period preceding their application for an immigrant visa under section 203(b).
What does the above statement mean??
So, folks who have an advanced degree from the US are exempt from the cap? Or advanced degree plus 3 yrs of work exp is required?
advanced degree in STEM + 3 years post degree experience in related field immediately preceding I485 filing. The related field part may have been taken out by SA4188 so just 3 years of work experience may be all you would need.
Hope this clause stays as otherwise the USCIS would have a field day with the "related field" clause.
What does the above statement mean??
So, folks who have an advanced degree from the US are exempt from the cap? Or advanced degree plus 3 yrs of work exp is required?
advanced degree in STEM + 3 years post degree experience in related field immediately preceding I485 filing. The related field part may have been taken out by SA4188 so just 3 years of work experience may be all you would need.
Hope this clause stays as otherwise the USCIS would have a field day with the "related field" clause.
more...
bestia
11-10 03:56 PM
I agree with Bestia but the only problem is finding a good employer and trusting someone. In this market everyone wants to take advantage of poor H1bs so kind of tricky to take any decision.
Of course it is. But several steps could be helpful. After getting an offer, meet your future coworkers, ask around, find somebody on H1b, talk to that person. See to what degree the top management is aware of H1b program. My CEO had no much idea about H1b, I considered this as a good sign.
Of course it is. But several steps could be helpful. After getting an offer, meet your future coworkers, ask around, find somebody on H1b, talk to that person. See to what degree the top management is aware of H1b program. My CEO had no much idea about H1b, I considered this as a good sign.
learning01
02-25 05:03 PM
This is the most compelling piece I read about why this country should do more for scientists and engineers who are on temporary work visas. Read it till the end and enjoy.
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
more...
guesswho
04-10 11:59 AM
That sucks :(
reddymjm
05-15 11:06 AM
Here is my $100
Paypal Receipt ID: 8D5173328S121125D
Come on everyone... donate a small percentage of your stimulus package.
Good Job elaiyam.
Paypal Receipt ID: 8D5173328S121125D
Come on everyone... donate a small percentage of your stimulus package.
Good Job elaiyam.
.jpg "W Magazine Angelina Jolie:")
omved
08-14 07:10 PM
Hi Friends,
While filing I 131, I came across this information
"{If you are in the United States and wish to travel abroad, you do not need to apply for advance parole if both conditions described below in A and B are met:
A. You are in one of the following nonimmigrant categories:
1. An H-1, temporary worker, or H-4, spouse, or child of an H-1; or
2. An L-1, intracompany transferee, or L-2, spouse or child of an L-1; or
3. A K-3, spouse, or K-4, child of a U.S. citizen; or
4. A V-2, spouse, or V-3, child of a lawful permanent resident; and
B. A Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, was filed on your behalf and is pending with USCIS.
However, upon returning to the United States, you must present your valid H, L, K, or V nonimmigrant visa and continue to remain eligible for that status}"
My 797 petition is approved till 2011 but my H1B visa is not stamped. I am planning India trip in November. What would be appropriate for me..
Should I get H1B stamped in Mexico / Canada / India
OR
Should I apply for AP.
I have heard that after applying AP we should really not leave the country until decision has been made on AP application. I fear if I apply for AP now, probably it would not be approved by first week of November.
I don't know what to do. Any help pls..
Thanks
Omved
1485 ND august 15, 2007 in NE - No LUD so far. Infopass appointment confirmed FP/back ground check completed
H1b 7th year in extension
EB 2 - PD April 06
While filing I 131, I came across this information
"{If you are in the United States and wish to travel abroad, you do not need to apply for advance parole if both conditions described below in A and B are met:
A. You are in one of the following nonimmigrant categories:
1. An H-1, temporary worker, or H-4, spouse, or child of an H-1; or
2. An L-1, intracompany transferee, or L-2, spouse or child of an L-1; or
3. A K-3, spouse, or K-4, child of a U.S. citizen; or
4. A V-2, spouse, or V-3, child of a lawful permanent resident; and
B. A Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, was filed on your behalf and is pending with USCIS.
However, upon returning to the United States, you must present your valid H, L, K, or V nonimmigrant visa and continue to remain eligible for that status}"
My 797 petition is approved till 2011 but my H1B visa is not stamped. I am planning India trip in November. What would be appropriate for me..
Should I get H1B stamped in Mexico / Canada / India
OR
Should I apply for AP.
I have heard that after applying AP we should really not leave the country until decision has been made on AP application. I fear if I apply for AP now, probably it would not be approved by first week of November.
I don't know what to do. Any help pls..
Thanks
Omved
1485 ND august 15, 2007 in NE - No LUD so far. Infopass appointment confirmed FP/back ground check completed
H1b 7th year in extension
EB 2 - PD April 06
joshi_tushar
03-02 07:54 PM
I HAD SAME SITUATION FEW DAYS A GO, MY ATTORNEY TOLD ME THAT I NEED TO GO OUT OF COUNTRY ATLEAST FOR WEEK OR NEED TO FILE FOR H1B EXT.
I CHOSE TO FILE FOR EXT AS MY H1 WAS EXPERING AS WELL.
BUT FOR HER SHE MUST GO OUT BEFORE HER I-94 EXPIRES
i AM NO ATTORNEY PLEASE CONFIRM WITH 1.
I CHOSE TO FILE FOR EXT AS MY H1 WAS EXPERING AS WELL.
BUT FOR HER SHE MUST GO OUT BEFORE HER I-94 EXPIRES
i AM NO ATTORNEY PLEASE CONFIRM WITH 1.
helpful_leo
06-17 03:31 PM
thnx
No comments:
Post a Comment