vicky007
05-10 12:16 PM
Sorry, the link is not working anymore.
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
leoindiano
04-06 12:52 PM
How about this?
If a company located outside of united states, it cannot apply for more than 300 H1B's? I heard WIPRO and INFOSYS applied 6000 each this year
If a company located outside of united states, it cannot apply for more than 300 H1B's? I heard WIPRO and INFOSYS applied 6000 each this year
chanduv23
08-10 11:48 AM
Close This Thread
s416504
12-04 09:40 AM
Thanks Ashkam & Sledge_hammer for sharing valuable information
more...
jonty_11
07-11 03:07 PM
as long as ur empoyer can show that he is in good standing and can pay u..u shud be OK...
chanduv23
12-31 02:08 PM
sept 11 notice date, EAD approved for spouse and me. case transferred to TSC, no FP yet
Same here, september 11 notice date case transferred to TSC, EAD and AP recieved for self and spouse but no FP yet.
Some say it is not an issue, some say it can be an issue
Same here, september 11 notice date case transferred to TSC, EAD and AP recieved for self and spouse but no FP yet.
Some say it is not an issue, some say it can be an issue
more...
sands_14
12-05 02:54 PM
i think u need not get a new h1 stamp and can sill come in and out on AP without compromising yr h1 status.
Yes,You should get a multiple-entry AP.If it is one-time entry AP,then you need another AP.Genrally nowadays u get multiple-entry AP.
Yes,You should get a multiple-entry AP.If it is one-time entry AP,then you need another AP.Genrally nowadays u get multiple-entry AP.
fromnaija
12-12 02:20 PM
What if i leave it just like that?
That, my dear friend, is courting disaster at a later date and would be very unwise.
That, my dear friend, is courting disaster at a later date and would be very unwise.
more...
GCard_Dream
01-14 09:30 PM
No they can't. Congress needs to pass a law. This topic has been covered here in detail before. Try doing a search, if interested.
does anyone know if uscis need a law to pass in the congress to change the law on the i-485, or thy can decide to change it?
does anyone know if uscis need a law to pass in the congress to change the law on the i-485, or thy can decide to change it?
kaisersose
06-02 10:42 AM
Kaiser.
thx for replying . but I do not want both Visa on Oct1.
My L1 ends sometime in mid September.
My H1 would be effective only from Oct 1.
So, during this time I will be out of status right ?
So if I do my L1 Extension, I might solve the problem.
But Will doing that affect the approved H1 ?
Pls. help. thanks.
As far as I know, your H will impact your L, not the other way around. Your most recent I-94 will determine your status. Your H I-94 will start from Oct 01.
1. If your L extension cannot happen before Oct 1st, your L I-94 starts earlier than the H and will beinvalidated on October 1st.
2. If your L extension happens after October 1st - it will not happen because at that time, your status would have changed to H. So the ext will be denied as far as I know.
If you wish to continue your L after Oct 1st, get an extension approved, travel out of the country before Oct 1st, get a visa stamped and return on L after Oct 1st.
thx for replying . but I do not want both Visa on Oct1.
My L1 ends sometime in mid September.
My H1 would be effective only from Oct 1.
So, during this time I will be out of status right ?
So if I do my L1 Extension, I might solve the problem.
But Will doing that affect the approved H1 ?
Pls. help. thanks.
As far as I know, your H will impact your L, not the other way around. Your most recent I-94 will determine your status. Your H I-94 will start from Oct 01.
1. If your L extension cannot happen before Oct 1st, your L I-94 starts earlier than the H and will beinvalidated on October 1st.
2. If your L extension happens after October 1st - it will not happen because at that time, your status would have changed to H. So the ext will be denied as far as I know.
If you wish to continue your L after Oct 1st, get an extension approved, travel out of the country before Oct 1st, get a visa stamped and return on L after Oct 1st.
more...
pachai_attai
08-17 07:58 AM
sajimm, I was in similar situation like yours. During Dec 2004, Our doctor directly took xray test instead of TB skin test. Thats the reason I got NOID on 07/20/07.
I submitted my new 693 along with new TB skin test result and the case processing resumes on 08/15. The LUD is changing every day after that.
I submitted my new 693 along with new TB skin test result and the case processing resumes on 08/15. The LUD is changing every day after that.
chanduv23
06-28 02:46 PM
I have an important question that I need to ask here. What is going to be Job title in employment verification letter. For example if I work in company as a Software consultant and H1B states that I am Programmer Analysts and my PERM labor has stated Software Programmer Engineer.
So out of these 3 which one will going to be in my employment letter. I am unable to get in touch with attorney thru company and our HR doesnt know what to write in Employement letter. Any advise from people who already got their employement letter from their employer.
Thanks
INeedAllGreen
Use your PERM labor one - thats the safest, I have used that - Attorney signed off saying that is right
So out of these 3 which one will going to be in my employment letter. I am unable to get in touch with attorney thru company and our HR doesnt know what to write in Employement letter. Any advise from people who already got their employement letter from their employer.
Thanks
INeedAllGreen
Use your PERM labor one - thats the safest, I have used that - Attorney signed off saying that is right
more...
chapsi29
06-25 10:58 AM
Thanks for your quick response.
As much as I want the W2 ASAP, the issue is what is the amount that should be on the W2 as I did not get paid in 2007. The W2 legally should only contain the wages that you have received in that year.
As much as I want the W2 ASAP, the issue is what is the amount that should be on the W2 as I did not get paid in 2007. The W2 legally should only contain the wages that you have received in that year.
pasupuleti
02-13 05:04 PM
We met our san jose(CA) congressman Mike Honda (http://honda.house.gov/). We had good session with his staff. His office is in the process of writting a letter to Backlog centers asking them for speeding up approvals.Their office is well aware of backlog issues. Once they get a response back from DOL, they would let us know.
more...
oo00mustang00oo
08-10 04:48 PM
Guys,
I am happy to share with you all that I applied my 485 on 1 week of June and it got approved today.
My PD was dec 2005. eb3. India.
Thought i would share with you all.:)
I am happy to share with you all that I applied my 485 on 1 week of June and it got approved today.
My PD was dec 2005. eb3. India.
Thought i would share with you all.:)
alterego
09-11 03:19 AM
After reading this, I was not sure whether that 140K included the Labour backlogs. I know the BECs have been a lot more active lately and have been pumping out approvals/denials more rapidly.
If infact 140K backlogs do include them, then perhaps that would be a good thing, since atleast then we can perhaps begin to get our arms around this and understand how long our waits will actually be.
One thing is for sure they have definitely stepped up the speed of things at the USCIS with other filings after retrogression hit.
If infact 140K backlogs do include them, then perhaps that would be a good thing, since atleast then we can perhaps begin to get our arms around this and understand how long our waits will actually be.
One thing is for sure they have definitely stepped up the speed of things at the USCIS with other filings after retrogression hit.
more...
Akia
03-24 11:00 AM
It's complicated. An employer cannot ask you to repay any of the Training Fee ($1500 or $750 if under 25 employees). You cannot pay any of the rest of the costs if paying those costs brings your salary below the "prevailing wage" or "actual wage" for the position.
As regards whether a reimbursement agreement is enforceable - it depends on state law.
Does this mean that if my salary is higher than the "prevailing wage" by more than $320, the employer can legally ask me to reimburse the $320 filing fee? I have searched very hard but could not find any memo/doc regarding this.
As regards whether a reimbursement agreement is enforceable - it depends on state law.
Does this mean that if my salary is higher than the "prevailing wage" by more than $320, the employer can legally ask me to reimburse the $320 filing fee? I have searched very hard but could not find any memo/doc regarding this.
vikrantp
01-23 08:45 AM
I think with PERM in place you have to be on the payroll for the employer to apply for the GC. Pre-PERM you were not required to be on payroll..
Thats the info that I know of (Not from lawyers) from friends.. Please correct me if i am wrong.:confused:
Thats the info that I know of (Not from lawyers) from friends.. Please correct me if i am wrong.:confused:
BMWX5
03-14 11:58 PM
We all know that we are able to file 485 on July and we got EAD due to IV efforts. Which in turn helping us to get a 600$ rebate for the spouse (Some plan to spend the money).. Can we make a pledge here that we will contribute a certain % to our organization? The % can be your choice. At least this % can help this site up and running� If the moderator decide that this is not a good idea please close this thread.
First from me 20% from whatever I get as rebate �
Why should I contribute?
I'm not going to do.
For this I'll get red dots, and will be banned.
I do not care.
First from me 20% from whatever I get as rebate �
Why should I contribute?
I'm not going to do.
For this I'll get red dots, and will be banned.
I do not care.
insbaby
11-21 11:07 PM
Similar Question:
I have not left the USA for the last 5 years. I have since extended my H1- thrice. So I have 3 new I-94's and the old one that is stapled in the passport. I-94 is taken at the airport when you depart, to record your departure and also to see if you were residing legally on a valid stay. Question: They always take the one stapled in your pasport. (That in my case shows an expired stay.) so should I give them the latest I-94 when I depart?.
You should take a copy of the I-797's and detach the portion of it and staple with the existing I-94. If you read the I-797 carefully, they mentioned it to put it in your passport, means, all I-94s must be handed over before you leave. Sometimes, you may have different I-94 numbers, so it is better to give all I-94's.
You can not do anything by retaining those I-94s after you leave, just take a copy and give them back.
BUT, make sure that it is in valid period. If you have got a new I-797, where the period has not started, DO NOT GIVE IT BACK, take it with you to the consulate. Give I-94's only up to the period you are leaving.
I have not left the USA for the last 5 years. I have since extended my H1- thrice. So I have 3 new I-94's and the old one that is stapled in the passport. I-94 is taken at the airport when you depart, to record your departure and also to see if you were residing legally on a valid stay. Question: They always take the one stapled in your pasport. (That in my case shows an expired stay.) so should I give them the latest I-94 when I depart?.
You should take a copy of the I-797's and detach the portion of it and staple with the existing I-94. If you read the I-797 carefully, they mentioned it to put it in your passport, means, all I-94s must be handed over before you leave. Sometimes, you may have different I-94 numbers, so it is better to give all I-94's.
You can not do anything by retaining those I-94s after you leave, just take a copy and give them back.
BUT, make sure that it is in valid period. If you have got a new I-797, where the period has not started, DO NOT GIVE IT BACK, take it with you to the consulate. Give I-94's only up to the period you are leaving.
optimystic
04-22 03:51 PM
That particular date of July 11 at NSC is for EB I-485 !
Hey that was my hundred...and lo behold I am a senior member now :) ....I was hoping to save my 100th post to share a positive news that I got my GC or something. But it was probably too much to expect I guess :D
Hey that was my hundred...and lo behold I am a senior member now :) ....I was hoping to save my 100th post to share a positive news that I got my GC or something. But it was probably too much to expect I guess :D
No comments:
Post a Comment