Cessna forced down by the Feds

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:29:34 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

The "current system" does not work nearly so well as it
seems you think it does.

Such is the nature of bureaucracies.

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

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

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
How can you know that "doing so would not in any way cause any
harmful effects" if it isn't occurring?

Because my sister-in-law was an applicant rejected by the INS. I am
familiar enough with her situation to know that admitting her as a
permanent
resident to the US would not have any harmful effects.

I have other personal acquaintances who have had similar troubles moving
to
the US, and have way more familiarity with the arbitrariness and
exceptions
to your claim that "the current system legally admits healthy, educated,
skilled labor" than I really would like to have.

You accuse CJ of being naive, when in fact you appear to exhibit the same
characteristic. The "current system" does not work nearly so well as it
seems you think it does.

Pete


The current system works. Chances are your sister will have to wait her
turn as there are quotas for entry. That is not an indication of a broke
system. Being an educated fine upstanding person does not guarantee
immediate entry.

"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.

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

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

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. 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.

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

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.

Pete

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...
The current system works. Chances are your sister will have to wait her
turn as there are quotas for entry.

Read my other post. Her issue was not about quotas.

You should refrain from speculating on a situation about which you know
nothing. People are being turned away even when the spirit of the existing
regulations should allow them in.

Pete

There are adults weighing 170 lbs and under. Looking around my
neighborhood and office, however, there's not very many of them. Some
of this is based on height (hard to be 170 lbs and 6' 3" for example -
but yes, not impossible), some on the documented weight gains in
America. So, based on my admittedly anecdotal evidence on average
weight, my initial thoughts on this are that it's likely to be an
overgross situation.

Perhaps you live in an area with a lot of 170 lbs and under adults.
Good for you. Since this situation seems likely to be a smuggling
situation, it's pretty clear that a valid W&B isn't the prime
consideration for the pilot. I guess your own excellent imagination
didn't extend to seeing my indended tongue-in-cheek quality to my post.
Perhaps I should have been more clear.

-Malcolm Teas

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.

I agree.

There's the self-interest argument as well. Immigrants self-select for
traits we want in our country: a willingness to take a calcuated risk
for gain, an ambition to get ahead and improve their lives and their
childrens, a drive to do better.

It's no accident that with each peak of immigration into the US there's
been an economic rise in innovation, business formation, and employment
in the long term over the previously existing trends. The less we put
legal or social strictures on immigration the more true this is.

Besides, making things illegal just attracts the criminals - immigrants
wouldn't be smuggled if it were easier to get in. Clearly immigrants
are doing work that most of us don't want to do - otherwise there'd be
no demand for them and they wouldn't be coming in.

-Malcolm Teas

" wrote:

There are adults weighing 170 lbs and under. Looking around my
neighborhood and office, however, there's not very many of them.

Not many Asians in your office, are there?

George Patterson
He who marries for money earns every penny of it.

"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

Peter Duniho wrote on 1/29/2005 00:15:

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.

Knowing quite a bit about this topic, I am going to chime in here...
A good lawyer would have told her that there is no chance even before
applying.
The rules about the prevailing wage are there for a good reason.
Even for the work visa (I am assuming H1) the salary has to be at least
95% of the prevailing wage.

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

How do you know that this employer wasn't capable of paying the
prevailing wage?
Isn't it more that they weren't *willing* to pay the prevailing wage?

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.

"Healthy, educated, skilled labor" can find employers that pay the
prevailing wage.

-Joe