shocking compramize on CIR?

[baby_mde]

If they havent increased EB numbers, at least, they did not have anything specific in this to reduce this.

Plus there is a note for Family Backlog elimination.
I dont know whether this a +ve or -ve for us EB guys.

Would it take up numbers from EB or would they add more numbers to family (and maybe to EB)?


EB2

I am really worried about this law, because this law does not talk about EB GC backlog eleminations and it says that, this law will replace the present EB GC process by point based system.

What does this mean to us -- who ever in 140 and 485 states have to start all over?? We have spent so much of money and time.

THIS IS NOT FAIR AT ALL.

 

[Jackolantern]

They are not going to screw over existing I-140 and I-485 applicants. From observing the debates and hearings leading up to this, the goal is to be MORE friendly to skilled workers, not less.

 

[baby_mde]

They are not going to screw over existing I-140 and I-485 applicants. From observing the debates and hearings leading up to this, the goal is to be MORE friendly to skilled workers, not less.

Let us hope that they do not distrurb existing EB green cards, but in the AILA's summary they did not talk about EB backlogs. they always talking about FB backlogs.

 

[gcwhenever]

That's why I put lots of IFs into my statements.

As I said before, Canada's points system sucks. But they are not the only example of a points system.

If they are going to be prompt, it would have to work like New Zealand's system: When there is more demand than the quota allows, take the people with the most points until the quota is filled and then reject the rest. Case decided within 6-12 months. It is an automatically self-limiting system; when more people apply, you need more points to get selected, which deters the low-points people from even trying because most people are not going to waste lots of time and money applying when they don't have a realistic chance. So their system won't ever get bogged down with a bazillion applications.

However, if they don't have a quota then the system will eventually get bogged down with too many applicants. And if they do have a quota but they put the excess people into a queue instead of rejecting them, they will end up with the same sort of backlogs that exist now.

"Points system" does not mean it will be automatically good or bad. It all depends on the details of the design.

The problem is not in the theory, the problem is in the execution:

Let's suppose that Person A applies. He has enough education (say Masters degree), skills, right age, etc to give him reasonably high points to get the green card, but not so high that he is a sure-fire case.
Let's say that in that year an exceptionally large number of PhDs apply and so he falls on the threshold of the points, and additionally the quota runs out before he gets approved.
If there is no queue system, what is he supposed to do if he is on his 6th year of H-1b?
Unlike the current system, because he has no chance to apply again this year, and because there is no queueing system, he cannot get any extensions on his visa, which means he becomes illegal. So does he have to quit his job and go home as soon as time is up on his visa? Now he has lost 6 years with no hope at all as opposed to 6 years plus hope after 5-6 years.
How will this affect employers and businesses, when a large number of employees have to quit and go home because of no queueing system?
Regardless of your logic, I believe that the number of people applying will not diminish much, because everyone is going to try no matter how low their points, also no one knows when they apply how their points will compare with the rest of the applicant pool. And when applications are sent in, USCIS has no way to tell which ones are high points vs low, so they will still have to wade thru all the applications before they decide the highest point ones, which means same amount of processing time.

Second, logistically, how are they going to distinguish between a large number of people with the same points? Is it first come first serve? So, a Bachelor's degree can get a gc if he applies at the right time, and a PhD may not if he applies too late.
Or they wait until the end of the year to process all applicants, which would be crazy, because they will have no resources at end of year and extra resources during the rest of the year.

First problem has a solution if they allow applicants to self sponsor, in which case no one would be in a position to wait until they are in their 6th year.

Second one would have a solution if there were no quota (since qualifying applicants with points would apply and simply go into a queue), but then you would have backlogs like Canada.
I really wonder how New Zealand (as you claim) does it with a quota, would be interested to know their processing time.

Frankly we can all sit here and trash the immigration system, but it is very difficult to come up with a solution that works, unless America has no problem with unlimited number of immigrants, and as we all know that is not the case.

After all is said and done, makes you think the current system aint too bad as long as they dont give any more amnesties and 245(i)s.

 

[Jackolantern]

The problem is not in the theory, the problem is in the execution:

Yes, the problem is in the execution. But the current system is bad both in theory and execution.

Let's suppose that Person A applies. He has enough education (say Masters degree), skills, right age, etc to give him reasonably high points to get the green card, but not so high that he is a sure-fire case.
Let's say that in that year an exceptionally large number of PhDs apply and so he falls on the threshold of the points, and additionally the quota runs out before he gets approved.
If there is no queue system, what is he supposed to do if he is on his 6th year of H-1b?

He should leave. An efficient immigration has to have fast rejection in order to have fast acceptance. You cannot please the whole world. If he gets the yes/no decision within a year, he will have enough time to plan long before finishing his 6th year of H-1B. It's a lot better than sitting in a queue for 3-5 years and then getting rejected. If he has to leave he'll have the time to find a place in his own country or in another country where the competition for immigration is less stringent.

Unlike the current system, because he has no chance to apply again this year, and because there is no queueing system, he cannot get any extensions on his visa, which means he becomes illegal.

Give a 60-day grace period for them to leave the country if the decision comes after the H-1B expires.

How will this affect employers and businesses, when a large number of employees have to quit and go home because of no queueing system?

As I said before, if they are sensible they will have lots of time to plan. Putting people into an ever-growing queue is not a sustainable solution. However, a well-designed points system should give enough points for having a US job offer and US experience that there should not be huge numbers of people leaving.

Regardless of your logic, I believe that the number of people applying will not diminish much, because everyone is going to try no matter how low their points, also no one knows when they apply how their points will compare with the rest of the applicant pool. And when applications are sent in, USCIS has no way to tell which ones are high points vs low, so they will still have to wade thru all the applications before they decide the highest point ones, which means same amount of processing time.

A well-designed system will have a pre-application step like what New Zealand does (they call it "expression of interest"). You fill out a short form with your qualifications and do a self-evaluation of your points, without all the supporting documents. The NZ officials can then evaluate it very quickly and decide whether you have enough points to proceed with an official application. If you grossly miscalculate your points, you will be rejected. If they allow you to proceed, they will let you know how many points you truly have based on their own calculation and then you have to fill out more forms and find the supporting documents. If your official application does not support the qualifications you claimed at the time of pre-application, you will also be rejected. (As a side-note, highly competitive universities like Harvard and MIT also have a pre-application step, so they don't have to wade through tons of full applications that don't have a chance).

Second, logistically, how are they going to distinguish between a large number of people with the same points? Is it first come first serve? So, a Bachelor's degree can get a gc if he applies at the right time, and a PhD may not if he applies too late.

What New Zealand does is that every 2-4 weeks they take people from the top of the applicant pool based on their points. The points have already been determined at the pre-application step, so it easy to find those with the most points. If you remain in the pool for a year without being selected, you are rejected. It would be very rare for a very high-scoring person to sit for 12 months without ever getting selected. There might occasionally be an extremely competitive year, but that's how any competitive system works, whether it is a job or university or sport. People with the same points is not a real problem since you are not tied to the fiscal year in which you applied; you can remain in the pool for up to 12 months and cross into another fiscal year. The fiscal year only determines how many they can approve within the year.

First problem has a solution if they allow applicants to self sponsor, in which case no one would be in a position to wait until they are in their 6th year.

A points system without self-sponsorship will revert to the same crap that goes on in the US system. Give points for having a job or job offer, but allow the person to self-sponsor. NZ uses a self-sponsorship system (as do Australia and UK if my limited knowledge of them is correct).

Second one would have a solution if there were no quota (since qualifying applicants with points would apply and simply go into a queue), but then you would have backlogs like Canada.
I really wonder how New Zealand (as you claim) does it with a quota, would be interested to know their processing time.

They have a quota and their processing time is 6-12 months and you can do it while you wait outside New Zealand. However, after the first year of their new points system (about 4 years ago), they've had fewer applicants than the quota so you generally only need the minimum 100 points to get chosen.

After all is said and done, makes you think the current system aint too bad as long as they dont give any more amnesties and 245(i)s.

I don't have a big problem with letting them apply under the new points system, as long as negative points are given for their period of illegal stay (thereby disqualifying almost all of them unless they do something like a PhD in STEM).

 

[gcwhenever]

What New Zealand does is that every 2-4 weeks they take people from the top of the applicant pool based on their points. The points have already been determined at the pre-application step, so it easy to find those with the most points. If you remain in the pool for a year without being selected, you are rejected. It would be very rare for a very high-scoring person to sit for 12 months without ever getting selected. There might occasionally be an extremely competitive year, but that's how any competitive system works, whether it is a job or university or sport. People with the same points is not a real problem since you are not tied to the fiscal year in which you applied; you can remain in the pool for up to 12 months and cross into another fiscal year. The fiscal year only determines how many they can approve within the year.

A points system without self-sponsorship will revert to the same crap that goes on in the US system. Give points for having a job or job offer, but allow the person to self-sponsor. NZ uses a self-sponsorship system (as do Australia and UK if my limited knowledge of them is correct).

They have a quota and their processing time is 6-12 months and you can do it while you wait outside New Zealand. However, after the first year of their new points system (about 4 years ago), they've had fewer applicants than the quota so you generally only need the minimum 100 points to get chosen.

I don't have a big problem with letting them apply under the new points system, as long as negative points are given for their period of illegal stay (thereby disqualifying almost all of them unless they do something like a PhD in STEM).

Don't understand how NZ can have a processing time of 6-12 months if they have to wait for a year after being chosen in pre-app stage. By this lofgic, they would have to wait at least a year + processing time to see if anyone else in the pool has exceeded their points.

This still means that at least in the pre-app stage they have to go thru all pre-apps.
No sources to quote, but am pretty sure # pre-apps in US will be much much higher than in NZ.
Also, I don't think tomato-pickers and cooks (no offense to them) are going to stop trying simply b/c they do not have enough points.
Again, this translates into large # of pre-apps and processing time and resources.

Granted, it might be less than current, and I am not totally against the point system per se, as long as they include the biggest problem with it - taking into account business needs.
As an article correctly pointed out, you might end up with too many History PhDs and not enough IT BS techs. They should give the highest weight to job offer, or at least equal to education. This is the problem with Canada - PhDs driving cabs because they have no job offers.

But if they do that, then how is it that different from the current system [which requires a job offer, and EB1-2-3], except points make it a little more streamlined?

from our perspective the biggest advantage is self sponsorship.

 

[Jackolantern]

Don't understand how NZ can have a processing time of 6-12 months if they have to wait for a year after being chosen in pre-app stage. By this lofgic, they would have to wait at least a year + processing time to see if anyone else in the pool has exceeded their points.

6-12 months is the typical time including the pre-app stage. A small percentage will take more or less time than that. They take from the top of the pool every 2-4 weeks and work their way down, so the more points you have, the less time before they'll choose you.

This still means that at least in the pre-app stage they have to go thru all pre-apps.

So what? The pre-apps don't take much time to evaluate. The fee more than covers the expense of the few minutes it takes to look at it.

No sources to quote, but am pretty sure # pre-apps in US will be much much higher than in NZ.

Of course they will. But the US has more resources. Over a million people apply for visitor's visas every year, and almost all are decided within a few days if not the same day. They can handle a couple hundred thousand or even a million pre-apps per year.

Also, I don't think tomato-pickers and cooks (no offense to them) are going to stop trying simply b/c they do not have enough points.

Most people are realistic, not stupid. They don't have the time and money to waste applying for something where they don't have a chance. What's the use in paying a fee to apply with 50 points when the minimum is 100 (or whatever)? I don't see many high school dropouts applying to Harvard, or 24-year-olds applying to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation. Nor do I see those tomato-pickers and cooks applying for jobs as mechanical engineers or financial analysts.

Granted, it might be less than current, and I am not totally against the point system per se, as long as they include the biggest problem with it - taking into account business needs.
As an article correctly pointed out, you might end up with too many History PhDs and not enough IT BS techs. They should give the highest weight to job offer, or at least equal to education. This is the problem with Canada - PhDs driving cabs because they have no job offers.

Canada doesn't give enough weight for having a job offer. With New Zealand a job offer is very important, and they also give extra points for jobs in fields designated as having shortages. If you don't have a job offer you generally won't have enough points to get the minimum 100 score, or you'll just barely have enough to get 100 or 110, unless your other qualifications are superb.

But if they do that, then how is it that different from the current system [which requires a job offer, and EB1-2-3], except points make it a little more streamlined?

That's the main point, to make it more streamlined. It cannot be streamlined if the method of handling excess demand is to put people into an ever-growing queue.

from our perspective the biggest advantage is self sponsorship.

Of course.