Ricky_85

Hi everyone,
without discussing politics and talking only on facts, I don't understand some recent proposals on legal immigration.

First, about Rand Paul.
Paul's bill would also institute a 30-day waiting period for citizens of so-called visa waiver countries,

Read more: Rand Paul calls for moratorium on issuing visas to citizens of countries with a 'jihadist movement' - POLITICO

What does it mean? I don't understand.


Second. Some candidates say they want to decrease legal immigration levels and to award jobs to American citizens. Employers' first choice should be USC and then immigrants. But isn't it what's happening right now?
I mean, we all know that regarding the H1B, H2B and other visas, the employer has to prove that no USC was available for the job.
So, what would be the difference?

Thanks!

ian-mstm

While I appreciate the sentiment, it's not going to happen - because it's all about politics. So I suggest a moderator move this to a more appropriate forum.

Ian

Ricky_85

I said I don't understand what some proposals are saying. Like, I don't know their meaning.
Technically, isn't anyone able to answer?

ian-mstm

I believe he's suggesting that you can't apply for ESTA today, get approved, and then travel tomorrow. Paul seems to want a 30-day delay either between applying and being approved, or between being approved and travelling.


No. Many employers bypass both USCs and immigrants and go right to visa applicants. This is certainly true in IT - because employers claim they can't find USCs or current immigrants to work for the paltry wages that they're offering.

Ian

sir_eccles

Technically no one can answer because technically there are no details of the scheme that make any sense or even exist.

Refugees (particularly in relation to current events) are refugees generally because they are fleeing jihadist regimes. Ergo Paul is saying he would like to accept zero refugees.

As for the H1B visas, the whole system has been hijacked by large outsourcing companies. I have not seen a sensible solution yet.

lansbury

Well what he is actually proposing isn't clear in that report. The only thing which came to mind was that if you apply for ESTA your first travel to the US cannot be until 30 days after the approval date. Maybe the same for those who live in a VWP country but need a visa to come to the US.

More details are needed to know what he really means.

roberth1970

As for the H1B visas, the whole system has been hijacked by large outsourcing companies. I have not seen a sensible solution yet.

The US based entity including any majority owned subsidiaries may only employ a maximum of X% (25?) of Visa Holders in the L1 and H1 categories? Seems fair, allows organizations to bring over labor to cover short term shortages or projects but stops the wholesale import of workers.

Ricky_85

Thanks.
That's why I said the thread was about technicalities. In fact, isn't it true that today employers, either for employment based immigrant visas but alsofor non immigrant visa, have to report to the dept of labor about the impossibility to find USC employees? The so-called PERM? I've always thought that is a rigourous process. So you are saying that 'no US employees are available for the job' is not a respected rule?
Thanks!

Ps. Do you think paul's proposal about esta will be enacted?

lansbury

Don't see what is to be gained from doing so. If Paul thinks the checks prior to the ESTA being issued are insufficient, he should take steps to beef up those checks. Doesn't make sense to grant an ESTA and then go on doing more checks. Other than allowing more checks what does a 30 day grace period achieve.

You have to wonder just how much he really knows about what checks are done prior to an ESTA being issued.

RoadWarriorFromLP

Presidential campaigns are riddled with promises that candidates can't keep and with positions taken on matters that are outside the scope of the presidency.

Legislation comes from Congress. Presidents have a "bully pulpit", but laws come from the legislature.

The Republicans can say whatever they want; if they don't have 60 seats out of 100 in the Senate, then they won't be able to do anything too drastic. (See "cloture" to understand why.) They probably won't have 60 seats in 2017, so the point is moot. A 30-day waiting period would be highly disruptive to business, so it ain't gonna happen.

sir_eccles

It's all political posturing. One must be seen to be doing something. Something big and showy that on paper looks good and sells well with the audience. Plus with the added benefit that if it does come to the floor for a vote he can point and say, aha see my opponent voted in favor of letting Muslim terrorists rape your children.

Sad to say I have already seen reports of political ads suggesting such.

Ricky_85

Ok. But i was talking about the visa waiver for Western countries, solid allies of the US, that should not pay the price of what's happening... The syrian refugees issue is different and beyond the scope of this thread.

Earlier I asked, regarding immigrant and non immigrant visas, about the rule that employers today have to prove they cannot find USC for that particular job, and that it's also involved the dept of labor with perm certifications and, finally, the consulate has a say obviously.
So why did someone on the thread say that it's not really the case, today, that employers are forced to prove they did not find USC?

fozzyb

It's all a bit of a game really.

If an employer really wants to employ foreign person X, then they write the job description in such a way that only person X can fit, but without making it too blatant (thats where the good imigration lawyer comes in). Thus they can honestly claim to have looked for a USC, but found no-one that meets all the requirements - so need to hire X from abroad.

MidAtlantic

We are starting from the (false) assumption that candidates know the current position on these issues. If they don't know how it works now how can they possibly know what to change? Just accept that this is all political posturing with no substance... just sound bites for their particular audience.

rpjs

Heh, that affected my wife in the UK. She saw an insanely specific job spec for a university job (required specific UK- and US-based experience) that she was quite sure she might well be the only person in the UK that could fit it.

It turned out the uni had an American academic on a temporary job that was expiring and they wrote the spec to give her a permanent job and visa. My wife threw a spanner in the works by being equally if nor better qualified and an EU citizen to boot so had to be given preference over the American.

In the end the uni cancelled the post and the American had to go home.