ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

Dear Editor:
I can understand Mr. Donnelly's rather cynical article and consideration of increased H-1B numbers as a "subsidy" for some companies. I wonder if he could explain his question "[a]ny immigration attorneys out there who want to defend that practice {lawyers placing ads for jobs, rather than the employer} to somebody whose 401(k) lost 50% of its value?" The law on labor certifications is the law and employers must interview all qualified U.S. workers, which include citizens and permanent residents, lawyers may not. How does this link to people losing value in their 401ks? A clarification would be appreciated.

One would think that if Mr. Donnelly's assertion that the H-1B program is a subsidy is true, then a company hiring H-1B's would help its bottom line and the other employees would benefit.

People have lost retirement income, including 401K money due to the IT and/or bust, the falling to earth of the high flying, highly-speculative and IT industries resulting in equally irrational stock market valuation (and corporate corruption), and over-salaried employees. No doubt citizens should have every opportunity to get jobs without a reduced salary H-1B employee taking away a potential job. However, the debate over whether there were enough persons with the skill-sets and education to meet the market need repeatedly leaned toward the negative, so that these nonimmigrants were barely seen as a threat. With an economy that has been on a roller-coaster, there may be a reassessment.

Another question for Mr. Donnelly is pragmatic. Does he really think that deregulation will occur? - that Congress will have the will to increase employment based imigration in this climate and bestow a far greater benefit (permanent residency) to a group of workers in a promising but still unproven sector of the market (IT)? - Think of the political implications as well as the implications for the labor department - and we thought INS was malfunctioning!!

Does Mr. Donnelly or anyone else have an opinion?

Ross Brady, Esq.