Immigration Voice

Immigration Voice (https://immigrationvoice.org/forum/)
-   IV Agenda and Legislative Updates (https://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/)
-   -   IV Update: Text of the 'outsourcing bill' (https://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/25288-iv-update-text-of-the-outsourcing-bill.html)

vbkris77 04-27-2009 02:22 PM

Question???
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by walking_dude (Post 336985)
Newer version is - as should've been expected - more protectionist than before.

1) It prohibits H1B workers from working in contract positions.There is a redundant provision for the L1 visa as well (there is already a law which does this for L1). However it doesn't prevent American companies from keeping these contract workers in India or elsewhere and co-ordinate the work through web-conferencing, video conferencing, VPN/VNC etc.

The day this law passes will be a great day for Outsourcing, and a sad day for America.

Which part of the text got you to this summary? Am I missing something? I don't see H1B ban for contract positions anywhere.. Pls. clarify.. Thanks for your analysis..

a.j.2048 04-27-2009 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TNMan (Post 337081)
I dont have problems with genuine L1s who wants to settle down and apply GC. But 90% of L1s, just come for 1-2 years, take away jobs to India, drive down wages and never interested in settling down

Don't you realize that this is the preferred policy of a large part of the US establishment? The anti-immigration activists are concerned about demographic change and are thus okay with jobs being sent abroad in exchange for limited permanent immigration.

add78 04-27-2009 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pappu (Post 336967)
Please stop H1 Vs L1 discussion and do not support those who aim to divide this community on various visa types, categories, nationalities etc. Any further attempts by any member in this direction will result in ban. We would appreciate if you read the bill posted by IV and provide some analysis on its content on this thread.

Pappu,

I went through the text of the new bill vis-a-vis current INA and compared the old and the proposed act. Here are the findings -

Section 101 - This spells disaster for all H1Bs in consulting companies (as FT or C2C) -

by striking clause (ii) of sub-paragraph (E) of the section 212(n)(1), and then adding the new clauses under (F), they are PROHIBITING placement of H1B employees on another employer's site, period. This will affect NOT ONLY pure staffing (desi or non-desi) companies who place their W-2 H1B employees at client site, BUT ALSO big consulting companies like IBM/ACCENTURE/DELOITTE et al. No placement/leasing/outsourcing/contracting for services or otherwise at another employer, period - UNLESS a waiver is obtained, which will mean every company will need to obtain a waiver in order to do so, EFFECTIVELY ENDING ANY CONSULTING BY H1B.

Section 102 - This spells disaster for all companies who's H1B+L1 > 50% total employees

by inserting two new clauses (H) and (I) in section 212(n)(1), it prohibits H1B only or H1B preferred advertisements and prevents any company that employees more than 50 employees to submit NEW H1B/L1 application IF the total number of H1B and L1 employees exceeds 50% of its total employees. It also requires ANY company employing even a single H1B employee to submit W-2s of IRS. This affects ALL Indian IT companies like TCS/WIPRO/INFOSYS/COGNIZANT et al.

remaining sections (103 onwards) are more about enforcement and investigations.

Section 201 - This spells disaster for companies that bring in workers on L visas

This also affects ALL Indian IT companies like TCS/WIPRO/INFOSYS/COGNIZANT et al. AS WELL AS some other companies that might bring in workers from their home country.

IN SUMMARY -

In the SHORT RUN, this hurts outsourcing industry, as they need more time, and H1B/L1 resources on site to transition the work offshore, but I agree that in the LONG RUN, it will GREATLY BENEFIT AND INCREASE OUTSOURCING.

That will indeed be a sad day. Grassley and Durbin are trying to cut the branch they are sitting on. :) This will have the exact opposite of their desired effect.

Hope this helps.

tammigaw 04-27-2009 03:53 PM

Relax guys ..This bill is not going anywhere
 
Guys,

with the measures that listed in the bill , i am sure it is going to face same fate as it had before in 07 .I read some where that this bill did not gain support as Oracle is against it .

This bill is against practices that is done mainly by Indian Outsourcing companies, as will impact all the american organizations in longer run (if a company outsource its operations ,they need to have a Permanent local hire to shadow the resource).

But even in the worst case even if bill gets tabled ,it will not gain support in the current form .

But IV Stand is Correct on this issue , not to support this bill as it may hamper our immigrant interest in longer run.

vbkris77 04-27-2009 04:14 PM

Waivers??
 
Below is the text for Waivers.. My understanding is that if end Client gives a letter to DOL stating that they don't layoffs due to this H1B and it is a temp. labor requirement etc.. It is still harsh considering anti-immigration climate.. What is feared asked in a Visa interview will be asked by DOL for extensions. So, H1B can't be on an auto-pilot mode..


``(I) the employer with whom the H-1B nonimmigrant would be placed has not displaced, and does not intend to displace, a United States worker employed by the employer within the period beginning 180 days before and ending 180 days after the date of the placement of the nonimmigrant with the employer;

``(II) the H-1B nonimmigrant will not be controlled and supervised principally by the employer with whom the H-1B nonimmigrant would be placed; and

``(III) the placement of the H-1B nonimmigrant is not essentially an arrangement to provide labor for hire for the employer with whom the H-1B nonimmigrant will be placed.


add78 04-27-2009 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vbkris77 (Post 337152)
Below is the text for Waivers.. My understanding is that if end Client gives a letter to DOL stating that they don't layoffs due to this H1B and it is a temp. labor requirement etc.. It is still harsh considering anti-immigration climate.. What is feared asked in a Visa interview will be asked by DOL for extensions. So, H1B can't be on an auto-pilot mode..


``(I) the employer with whom the H-1B nonimmigrant would be placed has not displaced, and does not intend to displace, a United States worker employed by the employer within the period beginning 180 days before and ending 180 days after the date of the placement of the nonimmigrant with the employer;

``(II) the H-1B nonimmigrant will not be controlled and supervised principally by the employer with whom the H-1B nonimmigrant would be placed; and

``(III) the placement of the H-1B nonimmigrant is not essentially an arrangement to provide labor for hire for the employer with whom the H-1B nonimmigrant will be placed.


the big consulting companies (IBM/Deloitte/Accenture et al) will try to get a waiver by showing the 3 conditions above - however, they need to do so every time a current assignment for their H1B employer ends and they need to place them on a new assignment / client. At that time they need to go through the waiver again, to determine whether the end client has had any layoffs in the last 180 days.

In short this bill is a disaster for ALL CONSULTING companies that have a large H1B population.

jchan 04-27-2009 06:53 PM

Will this bill affect current working consultants?
 
I read through the bill but don't quite understand...if I am working for a client on H1B, will I need to stop working as soon as this bill takes effect? or it only applies to newly applied H1B's (or extension/transfer)?

qasleuth 04-27-2009 08:22 PM

Can somebody please post a link to the 'original' H-1B Employer Application Requirements document from USICS (not interim docs) ?

add78 04-27-2009 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchan (Post 337211)
I read through the bill but don't quite understand...if I am working for a client on H1B, will I need to stop working as soon as this bill takes effect? or it only applies to newly applied H1B's (or extension/transfer)?

Yes, that is my understanding at this point based on the language . As soon as the bill goes into effect, you will need to stop working at the client site if the bill passes in its current form AND you are working as a FT employee (w-2) of a mere placement company (aka agent or desi consulting). If you are an FT employee of big consulting company then until they get waiver for you AND your current client proves that no layoffs were done at the client site in the last 180 days, you will need to stop working.

add78 04-27-2009 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasleuth (Post 337230)
Can somebody please post a link to the 'original' H-1B Employer Application Requirements document from USICS (not interim docs) ?

A google search of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1990 should land you what you seek.

jchan 04-27-2009 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by add78 (Post 337245)
Yes, that is my understanding at this point based on the language . As soon as the bill goes into effect, you will need to stop working at the client site if the bill passes in its current form AND you are working as a FT employee (w-2) of a mere placement company (aka agent or desi consulting). If you are an FT employee of big consulting company then until they get waiver for you AND your current client proves that no layoffs were done at the client site in the last 180 days, you will need to stop working.

I read the text again, and found that text is under 'Sub Title A - H1B Application Requirement', does that mean the new application has to meet the requirement but existing H1B holders are allowed to work until the end of their I-94 date? It would create a turmoil to stop all H1B contractor all in a sudden.

Anyway, let's hope the professional analysis from Pappu and attorney come out early

walking_dude 04-27-2009 11:03 PM

It's not just 180 daysd before the application, it also includes 180 days AFTER the application.

This is the current section on 90 days period


(E)(i) In the case of an application described in clause (ii),
the employer did not displace and will not displace a United States
worker (as defined in paragraph (4)) employed by the employer within
the period beginning 90 days before and ending 90 days after the
date of filing of any visa petition
supported by the application.

And the ammendment in the new bill

(1) NONDISPLACEMENT.--Subparagraph (E) of such section 212(n)(1) is amended--
(A) in clause (i)--
(i) by striking ``90 days'' both places it appears and inserting ``180 days'';


Quote:

Originally Posted by add78 (Post 337245)
Yes, that is my understanding at this point based on the language . As soon as the bill goes into effect, you will need to stop working at the client site if the bill passes in its current form AND you are working as a FT employee (w-2) of a mere placement company (aka agent or desi consulting). If you are an FT employee of big consulting company then until they get waiver for you AND your current client proves that no layoffs were done at the client site in the last 180 days, you will need to stop working.


bigboy007 04-28-2009 12:28 AM

For me as i did similar analysis during CIR 2007 the text of the bill looks very much similar. They had the same issues on H1/L1 except now fraud prevention... Not sure where it goes... Any idea Pappu, PPL seem to be still interested in debating H1Vs L1 etc... For sure more offshoring...

Quote:

Originally Posted by add78 (Post 337114)
Pappu,

I went through the text of the new bill vis-a-vis current INA and compared the old and the proposed act. Here are the findings -

Section 101 - This spells disaster for all H1Bs in consulting companies (as FT or C2C) -

by striking clause (ii) of sub-paragraph (E) of the section 212(n)(1), and then adding the new clauses under (F), they are PROHIBITING placement of H1B employees on another employer's site, period. This will affect NOT ONLY pure staffing (desi or non-desi) companies who place their W-2 H1B employees at client site, BUT ALSO big consulting companies like IBM/ACCENTURE/DELOITTE et al. No placement/leasing/outsourcing/contracting for services or otherwise at another employer, period - UNLESS a waiver is obtained, which will mean every company will need to obtain a waiver in order to do so, EFFECTIVELY ENDING ANY CONSULTING BY H1B.

Section 102 - This spells disaster for all companies who's H1B+L1 > 50% total employees

by inserting two new clauses (H) and (I) in section 212(n)(1), it prohibits H1B only or H1B preferred advertisements and prevents any company that employees more than 50 employees to submit NEW H1B/L1 application IF the total number of H1B and L1 employees exceeds 50% of its total employees. It also requires ANY company employing even a single H1B employee to submit W-2s of IRS. This affects ALL Indian IT companies like TCS/WIPRO/INFOSYS/COGNIZANT et al.

remaining sections (103 onwards) are more about enforcement and investigations.

Section 201 - This spells disaster for companies that bring in workers on L visas

This also affects ALL Indian IT companies like TCS/WIPRO/INFOSYS/COGNIZANT et al. AS WELL AS some other companies that might bring in workers from their home country.

IN SUMMARY -

In the SHORT RUN, this hurts outsourcing industry, as they need more time, and H1B/L1 resources on site to transition the work offshore, but I agree that in the LONG RUN, it will GREATLY BENEFIT AND INCREASE OUTSOURCING.

That will indeed be a sad day. Grassley and Durbin are trying to cut the branch they are sitting on. :) This will have the exact opposite of their desired effect.

Hope this helps.


snathan 04-28-2009 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ItsLife (Post 337050)
Agreed that this will throw out all the crappy body shoppers. This is what we need in future not to make it difficult for future h1-b or other people. We should infact support this bill as this will weed out many Indian Body shoppers and benefit everyone.

This is nothing new but most of it is just implementing what is already in low. Thats my take on it.

Throw your GC and become H1...then you will understand the meaning of this bill

polapragada 04-28-2009 10:19 AM

Any idea when this is going for voting?
Democrats are supporting this or not?

add78 04-28-2009 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by walking_dude (Post 337268)
It's not just 180 daysd before the application, it also includes 180 days AFTER the application.

This is the current section on 90 days period


(E)(i) In the case of an application described in clause (ii),
the employer did not displace and will not displace a United States
worker (as defined in paragraph (4)) employed by the employer within
the period beginning 90 days before and ending 90 days after the
date of filing of any visa petition
supported by the application.

And the ammendment in the new bill

(1) NONDISPLACEMENT.--Subparagraph (E) of such section 212(n)(1) is amended--
(A) in clause (i)--
(i) by striking ``90 days'' both places it appears and inserting ``180 days'';

Yes, I got that already, I did not specify in my message as it is a "after the fact" requirement, i.e. I am not undermining its potential disastrous ramifications of having to force the layoff of already hired H1B if any other layoffs occur post the H1B hire, I was simply trying to focus my analysis on the impact BEFORE the H1B employee even be hired by employer or placed at client site. But yes, this applies AFTER 180 days as well.

add78 04-28-2009 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchan (Post 337263)
I read the text again, and found that text is under 'Sub Title A - H1B Application Requirement', does that mean the new application has to meet the requirement but existing H1B holders are allowed to work until the end of their I-94 date? It would create a turmoil to stop all H1B contractor all in a sudden.

Anyway, let's hope the professional analysis from Pappu and attorney come out early

That is the problem with us isn't it? We try to first figure out if something that is a potentially bad legislation applies to ME, MYSELF and MY OWN SELF first, if not then we simply shrug, bury our heads in the sand and do not act for the greater good of the community. That is precisely what happened 2 months ago when Grassley/Durbin went after the smaller consulting (staffing) companies and when those companies tried to garner support from the biggies, there was no help. The big consulting companies including the outsourcing companies thought that the demise of staffing/consulting companies would land them more business and the displaced H1Bs, not realizing it was just the first step of the Antis in their direction as well. Well now, everybody has been given the jolt of electricity.

Sadly it should not have come to this point. We always bicker and fight among ourselves (I am NOT picking on you or saying you are at fault) i.e. EB2 vs EB3, H1B vs L1, US Masters vs non-Masters, H1B with FT jobs vs H1B in C2C, staffing/consulting companies vs Big Consulting, Outsourcing companies vs non-outsourcing etc etc... the list goes on.

We, and I mean everybody I just described above, need to have the foresight to see every "divide and conquer" attack / technique that the antis throw at us and look past our differences and unite under IV's umbrella. Sigh..

ganguteli 04-28-2009 10:56 AM

From your posts you look like an anti-immigrant
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ItsLife (Post 337132)
I dont generalize the L1 abuse. This is how it works L1 is meant for company transfer and not to work on consulting positions across United states. Please read the law completely before you know what you are talking about. These L1 people come through intra company transfer and work on $10/ hr jobs undermining the folks on H1-b and L1's too. I dont know about your case and i dont want to comment on it too but do see my point. Please just dont oppose because you have to.

L1's working for consulting should be stopped , it should be meant as intra company transfer for learning and implementation of company projects and not to work at client sites. Thats the law my friend.

Fake profile alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! More reds to you

Green Card Category
EB3
Nationality
India
Country of Chargeability
India
Service Center
Nebraska
Labor Type
Regular
Perm Center
Others
Labor Approval Date
01/12/2004
I140-I485 Concurrent Filing
Yes
I140 Mailed Date
01/12/2004
I140 Filing Type
Regular
I140 USCIS Rcvd Date
01/12/2004
I140 Rcpt Notice Date
01/12/2004
I140 RFE Date
01/12/2004
I140 Approval Date
01/12/2004
July 2007 Filer
No
Adjustment of Status Application Type
Adjustment of Status (I-485)
I485 Mailed Date
01/12/2004
I485 USCIS Rcvd Date
01/12/2004
I485 Rcpt Notice Date
01/12/2004
Finger Print Notice Date
01/12/2004
I485 RFE Notice Date
01/12/2004
Application Status
Approved
I485 Approval Date
01/12/2004
EAD Mailed Date
01/12/2004
EAD RFE Date
01/12/2004
EAD Approval Date
01/12/2004
AP Mailed Date
01/12/2004
AP RFE Date
01/12/2004
AP Approval Date
01/12/2004

add78 04-28-2009 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polapragada (Post 337326)
Any idea when this is going for voting?
Democrats are supporting this or not?

I would strongly suggest everyone to acquaint himself/herself with the legislative process and how a bill moves through different phases / steps before it becomes a law. You can find many postings documenting the process.

Right now it is just introduced in the senate. The problem for us is that Sen Durbin is Democratic Whip (i.e. Assistant Majority Leader) which gives him tremendous influence over garnering votes and referring which legislation to consider to the Majority Leader (Harry Reid in the Senate). Ultimately Reid decides which legislation get priority consideration. The fact that Grassley is a Republican and is close to the Minority Leader (I think) does not help us either. We will monitor the progress of the bill.

ilikekilo 04-28-2009 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasleuth (Post 337230)
Can somebody please post a link to the 'original' H-1B Employer Application Requirements document from USICS (not interim docs) ?


I believe this is the one you are looking for!?

http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/h-1b.cfm

Marphad 04-28-2009 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morchu (Post 336808)
Understood. Now you want all H1 L1 B1 everything to be stopped. So lets vote only for EAD/AP/GC till you get your GC. After that US should stop GC also, right? (but ofcourse, naturalization still should remain open for a few more years).

If one person can work for your job at $8/hr, and you are charging $100/hr, market would adjust itself to $8/hr (for a moment forget about who does this $8/hr, it can be a high-school kid, or anybody).The only reason why somebody blames that $8/hr kid for loosing his job is because he "thinks" he is "superior" to that kid. There are many situations where companies decide to retain "fresh college grads" and layoff "senior experienced" persons, to save money.

Don't take me wrong, but I also think the L1 is mis-used a bit. But I personally think the mis-usage comes from other factors (like H1 unavailability, employer prefer L1 because employee cannot change to another employer in L1, other H1 restrictions) etc..

I would not say there is a lot of misuse. In any law there will be some level of misuse / abuse. Because of current economic situation, this is just hyped.

More, I think the angle to look at H1 / L1 misuse is wrong. If any misuse / abuse is happening, that is because of improper address to labor situation. If government believed that there is a shortage in labor market, they should allow a person to come on his own visa that is independant of employer. Let that person fill the labor shortage gap. Rather they made everything employer dependant, gave employers full change to misuse / abuse the H1 and L1 category and the real solution to the issue - work force is paying heavy price of idiotic visa policy.

gc28262 04-28-2009 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by add78 (Post 337338)
I would strongly suggest everyone to acquaint himself/herself with the legislative process and how a bill moves through different phases / steps before it becomes a law. You can find many postings documenting the process.

Right now it is just introduced in the senate. The problem for us is that Sen Durbin is Democratic Whip (i.e. Assistant Majority Leader) which gives him tremendous influence over garnering votes and referring which legislation to consider to the Majority Leader (Harry Reid in the Senate). Ultimately Reid decides which legislation get priority consideration. The fact that Grassley is a Republican and is close to the Minority Leader (I think) does not help us either. We will monitor the progress of the bill.

Question to IV core.
Can't we turn Mr Durbin to our side since IL has a large Indian community ?

ganguteli 04-28-2009 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gc28262 (Post 337359)
Question to IV core.
Can't we turn Mr Durbin to our side since IL has a large Indian community ?

Define which Indian community?
Gujratis who own motels and shops and will want more family immigration vs H1B

or

Indians who are now citizens. They will want less Indians to reduce competition for their jobs or for their children.

or

Desi consulting owners : less said the better

or
Desi H1b, students EAD etc...
They are a scared lot anyways and only worry about their immigration status and making dollars. Go tell them about IV if you can?

So tell which Indian community you are talking about?

gc_on_demand 04-28-2009 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ganguteli (Post 337366)
Define which Indian community?
Gujratis who own motels and shops and will want more family immigration vs H1B

or

Indians who are now citizens. They will want less Indians to reduce competition for their jobs or for their children.

or

Desi consulting owners : less said the better

or
Desi H1b, students EAD etc...
They are a scared lot anyways and only worry about their immigration status and making dollars. Go tell them about IV if you can?

So tell which Indian community you are talking about?

Gangu ???

Didnot understand ur first two points... Are Gujaratis not indian ? Can you be little more specific ?

ganguteli 04-28-2009 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gc_on_demand (Post 337372)
Gangu ???

Didnot understand ur first two points... Are Gujaratis not indian ? Can you be little more specific ?

Because of more population of that group in that area

return_to_india 04-28-2009 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pappu (Post 336865)
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...423_219068.htm

But advocates for skilled immigrants—many of whom remain stuck for years on H-1Bs waiting in the long queue for permanent residency—worry that the bill is a political maneuver rather than an earnest effort at reform. Aman Kapoor, president of the skilled immigrant advocate group Immigration Voice, says that a more effective bill would ensure H-1B visa workers are on a level playing field with U.S. workers. "Skilled immigrants on H-1Bs don't get the same rights and protections as everyone else," says Kapoor. "So wouldn't the solution be to empower and enable the skilled immigrants on H-1Bs such that…skilled immigrants on H-1s have adequate protections so that no one can take advantage of [them]? But no one wants to talk about protections for skilled immigrants."

Employers don't want H1Bs that flexible ( or want be invisibly bonded. )
in fear of bargaining and jumping the ship.

ilikekilo 05-04-2009 11:52 AM

Many folks suggest that this BIll (when turns into a law) would promote outsourcing..but how does these set of changes being proposed by Odama's admin. would affect outsourcing??

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...tax-havens/?hp

I know it wont "stop" outsourcing in any way but seems like they claim that they are " taking away the tax advantages of companies shipping jobs overseas"...Iam sure its more complicated than that..

However the kind of tone being set by the incumbent these days, I believe reflects the current administrations policies that might trickle to us(documented workers) as well.. not sure..

However this can be also looked at, the adminstartion si trying to "show" that they are doing whatever they can disccourage companies from sending jobs overseas..and then eventually take a stab at CIR..wishful thinking..:D

gauravster 05-04-2009 12:32 PM

Other side of the coin
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ilikekilo (Post 338662)
Many folks suggest that this BIll (when turns into a law) would promote outsourcing..but how does these set of changes being proposed by Odama's admin. would affect outsourcing??

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...tax-havens/?hp

I know it wont "stop" outsourcing in any way but seems like they claim that they are " taking away the tax advantages of companies shipping jobs overseas"...Iam sure its more complicated than that..

However the kind of tone being set by the incumbent these days, I believe reflects the current administrations policies that might trickle to us(documented workers) as well.. not sure..

However this can be also looked at, the adminstartion si trying to "show" that they are doing whatever they can disccourage companies from sending jobs overseas..and then eventually take a stab at CIR..wishful thinking..:D

To read other side of the coin, go to Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1241...Tabs%3Darticle

Not sure if it prevents outsourcing or not. It will have a significant impact on all fortune 500 companies incorporated in US. it would encourage companies to be incorporated somewhere else and set up a subsidiary in the US, so that international income is not taxed.

Exposing tax havens is one thing, but taxing income of corporates generated in another country another.

I think a government should only tax GDP produced within its borders and income of people living within the borders. The benefit of being incorporated in the US is usually that of access to capital markets, but in a globalized world even companies incorporated at other places have this access now.

Overall this is a good bill(esp when applied only to individuals), a lot would depend on what gets passed finally. For corporates the high tax rate is very high(35%, deductions bring it down to an average rate of 25%) and while these deductions are removed, the top rate has to come down, something which seems to be missing.

My view is that with regard to taxes, rather than a fix here, a fix there and making taxes more complicated, it would be better to just simplify it as a whole, abolish most, if not all deductions(keep deductions used by most 90% people which are few) and charge a fixed 15-20% of GDP (with some progressivity).

ilikekilo 05-04-2009 10:52 PM

Does any one know about any existing law (that has been passed as part of a bill or whatever) that offers whistleblower protection for non immigrant visa workers (H1b. L1 etc)?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c)ImmigrationVoice.org