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

Wrong. "Part is". You're so eager to come up with your own corrections,
you failed to read the sentence properly.

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.

Not to me. She had a perfectly good job, working a perfectly fair wage for
that segment of the industry. Why should she be forced to do another job
search? Furthermore, if her job WAS hurting wages in the US, why was her
work visa approved? It's okay to hurt wages for 12 years, but not for a
lifetime?

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?

No. And the INS does not allow for her to prove her case as you suggest.

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?

That's entirely irrelevant to the situation I mentioned, nor am I going to
get into a philosophical discussion about how the rules *should* be. The
fact is that the rules are intended to protect wages in the US. In the
situation I describe, wages in the US would not be at risk.

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

She was not allowed the opportunity to do so. INS did not consider it
relevant.

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

INS does not generally have anything to do with domestic pay policy. The
point here is that the non-profit company was already paying at the maximum
of their ability.

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

You're not listening. Her job was not lowering US wage standards
whatsoever.

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

It's "their". And again, this isn't about whether it's reasonable to
protect US wages or not.

Pete