I'm glad to see that Mr. Randolph's letter supports my three-year proposal for
employment-based green cards. I am surprised, though, to see him say
that my proposal as a whole leaves the same loopholes as before. Mr.
Randolph's letter indicates, for example, that there still would be problems with the
calculation of prevailing wage, but this is not the case. The only part
of my proposal which is similar to prevailing wage is a requirement to
pay at least the median for the given occupation. Though I do not
mention it in the Web page, the more detailed version of my proposal
specifies that this median would be defined by the OES data, contrary to
the current system's "wiggle room" available by taking the minimum value
among several private surveys, etc. This is still not 100% airtight
(e.g. the employer could try various job classifications), but I believe
that my proposal is far less subject to loopholes, with far less
bureaucracy than the present one. Also my proposal provides
transparency which allows displaced American workers much greater access
to discover and challenge abuses, something the present system is sorely
lacking. And I must reiterate that the current problems are not enforcement issues, as Mr. Randolph claims, because as I pointed out earlier, although most employers underpay H-1Bs, they do so in
compliance with current law and regulations.
I'm not sure why Mr. Randolph renews his point that not all H-1Bs are in
the tech area. I agreed with that earlier, and my proposal specifically
states that it is aimed only at the tech area.
David Murray's letter consists mostly of ad hominem attacks on my
qualifications, certainly not the most convincing way to make a point.
But if it will put Mr. Murray more at ease, I will state that rather
than being "ivory tower" and speculative in my writings, I rely on
numerous types of resources, including, yes, immigration lawyers.
(Indeed, a number of them subscribe to my newsletter on H-1B/L-1
I must say it is odd, though, that in dismissing me as a non-lawyer who
dares to address legal issues, Mr. Murry feels quite competent to
discuss engineering issues even though he is a non-engineer. He assures
readers that employers have a technical "need" for these H-1B workers,
when of course he is in no position to make such an assessment, while I
do have the background to evaluate this.
I am baffled as to why Mr. Murray characterizes my view of H-1B as
being counter to those of labor unions. On the contrary, the AFL-CIO
and IEEE-USA have been complaining for years that H-1B (and more
recently L-1) is badly abused, and have offered their own proposals for
reform (some aspects of which appear in my proposal).
Share this page
Bookmark this page
The leading immigration law publisher - over 50000 pages of free information!
© Copyright 1995- American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM