On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:15:40 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
Such is the nature of bureaucracies.

Yes and no. Bureacracies are notoriously bad at stuff like this anyway, but
part of the problem is the rules as written.

The subject and predicate in the second clause of your sentence above
should agree in number: 'rules are' or 'rule is'.

This is born out in the not insubstantial "leakage" of immigrants
currently occurring across US boarders.

It's "borders", by the way. And "borne".

Thanks.

That said, I do not believe that
the "leakage" to which you refer is due primarily to the bureaucratic nature
of the process. Many, if not most, would not be qualified under ANY
reasonable interpretation of the US immigration law.

From what knowledge do you derive that opinion? I would be surprised
if you were familiar enough with MOST illegal immigrants to make such
a statement.

So what was the reason given for the denial of your sister-in-law's
admittance?

She had been working as an editor for a non-profit company, under a normal
work visa. When she tried to apply for the permanent resident status, they
denied it on the grounds that she was making less-than-prevailing wages for
the industry.

So all she would have had to do to remain in the country is find a job
at prevailing wage? That sounds quite reasonable to me.

Never mind that the company for which she was working was
never going to pay ANY person more than they were paying her.

In fact, it's quite likely that whoever they got to replace her after her
visa ran out is making less, since they didn't have the benefit of regular
salary increases she had over the years that she'd worked there.

If she could prove that her replacement and/or predecessor, who was a
US citizen, received equal or less pay at the same job, I would think
she might be able to establish the fact that she received the
prevailing wage for that job. Is it possible to appeal the decision?

Even if one assumes that wage protection is something that should be
included as part of our immigration law,

How would you feel if all the Indian programmers or EEs who wanted to
work in the US for substandard wages were permitted to immigrate and
displace the current highly compensated US citizens performing those
jobs? While such might make the US more competitive internationally,
it would cause a lot of bankruptcies and a significant reduction in US
standard of living.

it seems pretty ridiculous to me
for wages to be evaluated in a vacuum, one that ignores what a particular
employer is actually capable of paying.

Did your sister-in-law make a good case for that? Did she provide
documentary and testimonial evidence that supported that?

If enterprises were forced to pay what they are "actually capable of
paying," the wages of Microsoft employees might rise substantially.
:-)

Anyway, the point is that I know for a fact that plenty of "healthy,
educated, skilled labor" is being refused admittance to the US. Some do get
in, but others do not, for basically no good reason.

If you characterize a reduction in US wage standards as "no good
reason," perhaps you're correct.

I would guess, that congressional representatives would find it
difficult to be reelected if there constituencies found themselves
displaced by cheap immigrant labor.