Cessna forced down by the Feds

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:57:24 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
The current system legally admits healthy, educated, skilled labor,
and limits immigration of others.

Just so you understand that it does so only in theory, and that in practice
there are many impediments to healthy, educated, skilled laborers being
admitted to our country, even when doing so would not in any way cause any
harmful effects.


How can you know that "doing so would not in any way cause any
harmful effects" if it isn't occurring?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
How can you know that "doing so would not in any way cause any
harmful effects" if it isn't occurring?

Because my sister-in-law was an applicant rejected by the INS. I am
familiar enough with her situation to know that admitting her as a permanent
resident to the US would not have any harmful effects.

I have other personal acquaintances who have had similar troubles moving to
the US, and have way more familiarity with the arbitrariness and exceptions
to your claim that "the current system legally admits healthy, educated,
skilled labor" than I really would like to have.

You accuse CJ of being naive, when in fact you appear to exhibit the same
characteristic. The "current system" does not work nearly so well as it
seems you think it does.

Pete

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:29:34 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

The "current system" does not work nearly so well as it
seems you think it does.

Such is the nature of bureaucracies.

This is born out in the not insubstantial "leakage" of immigrants
currently occurring across US boarders.

So what was the reason given for the denial of your sister-in-law's
admittance?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Such is the nature of bureaucracies.

Yes and no. Bureacracies are notoriously bad at stuff like this anyway, but
part of the problem is the rules as written.

This is born out in the not insubstantial "leakage" of immigrants
currently occurring across US boarders.

It's "borders", by the way. And "borne". That said, I do not believe that
the "leakage" to which you refer is due primarily to the bureaucratic nature
of the process. Many, if not most, would not be qualified under ANY
reasonable interpretation of the US immigration law.

So what was the reason given for the denial of your sister-in-law's
admittance?

She had been working as an editor for a non-profit company, under a normal
work visa. When she tried to apply for the permanent resident status, they
denied it on the grounds that she was making less-than-prevailing wages for
the industry. Never mind that the company for which she was working was
never going to pay ANY person more than they were paying her.

In fact, it's quite likely that whoever they got to replace her after her
visa ran out is making less, since they didn't have the benefit of regular
salary increases she had over the years that she'd worked there.

Even if one assumes that wage protection is something that should be
included as part of our immigration law, it seems pretty ridiculous to me
for wages to be evaluated in a vacuum, one that ignores what a particular
employer is actually capable of paying.

Anyway, the point is that I know for a fact that plenty of "healthy,
educated, skilled labor" is being refused admittance to the US. Some do get
in, but others do not, for basically no good reason.

Pete

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:15:40 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
Such is the nature of bureaucracies.

Yes and no. Bureacracies are notoriously bad at stuff like this anyway, but
part of the problem is the rules as written.

The subject and predicate in the second clause of your sentence above
should agree in number: 'rules are' or 'rule is'.

This is born out in the not insubstantial "leakage" of immigrants
currently occurring across US boarders.

It's "borders", by the way. And "borne".

Thanks.

That said, I do not believe that
the "leakage" to which you refer is due primarily to the bureaucratic nature
of the process. Many, if not most, would not be qualified under ANY
reasonable interpretation of the US immigration law.

From what knowledge do you derive that opinion? I would be surprised
if you were familiar enough with MOST illegal immigrants to make such
a statement.

So what was the reason given for the denial of your sister-in-law's
admittance?

She had been working as an editor for a non-profit company, under a normal
work visa. When she tried to apply for the permanent resident status, they
denied it on the grounds that she was making less-than-prevailing wages for
the industry.

So all she would have had to do to remain in the country is find a job
at prevailing wage? That sounds quite reasonable to me.

Never mind that the company for which she was working was
never going to pay ANY person more than they were paying her.

In fact, it's quite likely that whoever they got to replace her after her
visa ran out is making less, since they didn't have the benefit of regular
salary increases she had over the years that she'd worked there.

If she could prove that her replacement and/or predecessor, who was a
US citizen, received equal or less pay at the same job, I would think
she might be able to establish the fact that she received the
prevailing wage for that job. Is it possible to appeal the decision?

Even if one assumes that wage protection is something that should be
included as part of our immigration law,

How would you feel if all the Indian programmers or EEs who wanted to
work in the US for substandard wages were permitted to immigrate and
displace the current highly compensated US citizens performing those
jobs? While such might make the US more competitive internationally,
it would cause a lot of bankruptcies and a significant reduction in US
standard of living.

it seems pretty ridiculous to me
for wages to be evaluated in a vacuum, one that ignores what a particular
employer is actually capable of paying.

Did your sister-in-law make a good case for that? Did she provide
documentary and testimonial evidence that supported that?

If enterprises were forced to pay what they are "actually capable of
paying," the wages of Microsoft employees might rise substantially.
:-)

Anyway, the point is that I know for a fact that plenty of "healthy,
educated, skilled labor" is being refused admittance to the US. Some do get
in, but others do not, for basically no good reason.

If you characterize a reduction in US wage standards as "no good
reason," perhaps you're correct.

I would guess, that congressional representatives would find it
difficult to be reelected if there constituencies found themselves
displaced by cheap immigrant labor.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
The subject and predicate in the second clause of your sentence above
should agree in number: 'rules are' or 'rule is'.

Wrong. "Part is". You're so eager to come up with your own corrections,
you failed to read the sentence properly.

So all she would have had to do to remain in the country is find a job
at prevailing wage? That sounds quite reasonable to me.

Not to me. She had a perfectly good job, working a perfectly fair wage for
that segment of the industry. Why should she be forced to do another job
search? Furthermore, if her job WAS hurting wages in the US, why was her
work visa approved? It's okay to hurt wages for 12 years, but not for a
lifetime?

If she could prove that her replacement and/or predecessor, who was a
US citizen, received equal or less pay at the same job, I would think
she might be able to establish the fact that she received the
prevailing wage for that job. Is it possible to appeal the decision?

No. And the INS does not allow for her to prove her case as you suggest.

How would you feel if all the Indian programmers or EEs who wanted to
work in the US for substandard wages were permitted to immigrate and
displace the current highly compensated US citizens performing those
jobs?

That's entirely irrelevant to the situation I mentioned, nor am I going to
get into a philosophical discussion about how the rules *should* be. The
fact is that the rules are intended to protect wages in the US. In the
situation I describe, wages in the US would not be at risk.

Did your sister-in-law make a good case for that? Did she provide
documentary and testimonial evidence that supported that?

She was not allowed the opportunity to do so. INS did not consider it
relevant.

If enterprises were forced to pay what they are "actually capable of
paying," the wages of Microsoft employees might rise substantially.
:-)

INS does not generally have anything to do with domestic pay policy. The
point here is that the non-profit company was already paying at the maximum
of their ability.

If you characterize a reduction in US wage standards as "no good
reason," perhaps you're correct.

You're not listening. Her job was not lowering US wage standards
whatsoever.

I would guess, that congressional representatives would find it
difficult to be reelected if there constituencies found themselves
displaced by cheap immigrant labor.

It's "their". And again, this isn't about whether it's reasonable to
protect US wages or not.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote on 1/29/2005 00:15:

She had been working as an editor for a non-profit company, under a normal
work visa. When she tried to apply for the permanent resident status, they
denied it on the grounds that she was making less-than-prevailing wages for
the industry.

Knowing quite a bit about this topic, I am going to chime in here...
A good lawyer would have told her that there is no chance even before
applying.
The rules about the prevailing wage are there for a good reason.
Even for the work visa (I am assuming H1) the salary has to be at least
95% of the prevailing wage.

Even if one assumes that wage protection is something that should be
included as part of our immigration law, it seems pretty ridiculous to me
for wages to be evaluated in a vacuum, one that ignores what a particular
employer is actually capable of paying.

How do you know that this employer wasn't capable of paying the
prevailing wage?
Isn't it more that they weren't *willing* to pay the prevailing wage?

Anyway, the point is that I know for a fact that plenty of "healthy,
educated, skilled labor" is being refused admittance to the US. Some do get
in, but others do not, for basically no good reason.

"Healthy, educated, skilled labor" can find employers that pay the
prevailing wage.

-Joe

"Joe Feise" wrote in message
...
Knowing quite a bit about this topic, I am going to chime in here...
A good lawyer would have told her that there is no chance even before
applying.

Perhaps. However, finding a "good lawyer" is less than trivial, just as
finding a competent person in practically any profession is. Two (maybe
three, I forget) different lawyers had been hired (at different times) to
assist with the permanent resident application, but none offered that
advice.

The rules about the prevailing wage are there for a good reason.
Even for the work visa (I am assuming H1) the salary has to be at least
95% of the prevailing wage.

As I mentioned before, I'm not going to get into the debate as to whether
the rules make sense. Suffice to say, not everyone feels that "the
prevailing wage are there for a good reason".

Regardless, in this case, it's my opinion that the prevailing wage should
have been evaluated in a different context. A non-profit organization isn't
going to pay the same pay scale as might be found at a high-revenue
commercial operation (like Microsoft, Apple, or Sun...three big employers
that hire technical editors), or a for-profit periodical publication (say PC
World or Windows Magazine, or something like that).

Why should technical editing pay at a non-profit be compared to pay at
companies that are in a decidedly different business? Under this
interpretation of the rules, no non-profit organization can ever hire a
permanent resident applicant. They simply cannot afford to compete with
other employers that are engaged in an entirely different business.

How do you know that this employer wasn't capable of paying the prevailing
wage?

Because if they were, they would have kept my sister-in-law on at the higher
wage, rather than lose her skills. Finding someone to replace the skillset
she'd developed during the 12 years with the company (never mind the
experience she'd had prior) would have cost them far more than a salary
increase. The company was highly motivated to keep her as an employee, and
they did everything they could within their budget to assist in her
permanent resident application.

As things stand now, the company was forced to let her leave the country
unemployed, and hire someone else at the same wage (possibly lower), who was
less qualified than her.

Isn't it more that they weren't *willing* to pay the prevailing wage?

I assume you mean "isn't it more likely that they...", and the answer is no.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote on 1/29/2005 11:24:

Perhaps. However, finding a "good lawyer" is less than trivial, just as
finding a competent person in practically any profession is. Two (maybe
three, I forget) different lawyers had been hired (at different times) to
assist with the permanent resident application, but none offered that
advice.

I agree that there are way too many bad immigration lawyers out there. I
have experienced one or two of them myself...
That's when I decided to learn enough about this stuff to be able to
know if a lawyer is trying to BS me.

Regardless, in this case, it's my opinion that the prevailing wage should
have been evaluated in a different context. A non-profit organization isn't
going to pay the same pay scale as might be found at a high-revenue
commercial operation (like Microsoft, Apple, or Sun...three big employers
that hire technical editors), or a for-profit periodical publication (say PC
World or Windows Magazine, or something like that).

And that isn't the case. The prevailing wage is determined by
metropolitan area. The prevailing wage for a specific job in, say, some
small town in the Midwest is less than the prevailing wage for that same
job in Silly Valley, or Seattle, or NYC. The cost of living is of course
lower in small towns as well.

Why should technical editing pay at a non-profit be compared to pay at
companies that are in a decidedly different business? Under this
interpretation of the rules, no non-profit organization can ever hire a
permanent resident applicant.

By the same logic, the non-profit organization wouldn't be able to hire
Americans, either, since they all would go to the companies who pay the
big bucks...

They simply cannot afford to compete with
other employers that are engaged in an entirely different business.

Non-profit does not necessarily mean that they can't afford to pay
competitive salaries...
Non-profit or not, the rules apply to everybody. If a company, for
profit or non-profit, can't afford or is unwilling to pay the going rate
for a specific position in a specific area, they can't sponsor a
Greencard for that position.

increase. The company was highly motivated to keep her as an employee, and
they did everything they could within their budget to assist in her
permanent resident application.

Well, there is the catch right the "within their budget". If they
were really, really interested in keeping her, they would have paid her
the going rate in the area.
In other words, the company was paying lip service to her, but their
actions or rather lack of action spoke louder than their words.
Once she would have gotten the GC, she could have gone to the
higher-paying companies. She couldn't do that as long as she was on a
work visa, hence the company took advantage of her limited ability to
change jobs. And that's what the rules try to prevent.
And, btw, the law doesn't allow to use the experience gained on the job
as an advantage over other applicants who are otherwise qualified for
the job.

In any case, this is getting quite off-topic here, so I set the followup
to alt.visa.us.

-Joe

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
How can you know that "doing so would not in any way cause any
harmful effects" if it isn't occurring?

Because my sister-in-law was an applicant rejected by the INS. I am
familiar enough with her situation to know that admitting her as a
permanent
resident to the US would not have any harmful effects.

I have other personal acquaintances who have had similar troubles moving
to
the US, and have way more familiarity with the arbitrariness and
exceptions
to your claim that "the current system legally admits healthy, educated,
skilled labor" than I really would like to have.

You accuse CJ of being naive, when in fact you appear to exhibit the same
characteristic. The "current system" does not work nearly so well as it
seems you think it does.

Pete


The current system works. Chances are your sister will have to wait her
turn as there are quotas for entry. That is not an indication of a broke
system. Being an educated fine upstanding person does not guarantee
immediate entry.