ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


RSS feed

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



Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here:

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

Dear Editor:
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 issues.) 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).

Norm Matloff

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here: