Cessna forced down by the Feds

"Joe Feise" wrote in message
...
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.

Perhaps. However, finding a "good lawyer" is less than trivial, just as
finding a competent person in practically any profession is. Two (maybe
three, I forget) different lawyers had been hired (at different times) to
assist with the permanent resident application, but none offered that
advice.

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.

As I mentioned before, I'm not going to get into the debate as to whether
the rules make sense. Suffice to say, not everyone feels that "the
prevailing wage are there for a good reason".

Regardless, in this case, it's my opinion that the prevailing wage should
have been evaluated in a different context. A non-profit organization isn't
going to pay the same pay scale as might be found at a high-revenue
commercial operation (like Microsoft, Apple, or Sun...three big employers
that hire technical editors), or a for-profit periodical publication (say PC
World or Windows Magazine, or something like that).

Why should technical editing pay at a non-profit be compared to pay at
companies that are in a decidedly different business? Under this
interpretation of the rules, no non-profit organization can ever hire a
permanent resident applicant. They simply cannot afford to compete with
other employers that are engaged in an entirely different business.

How do you know that this employer wasn't capable of paying the prevailing
wage?

Because if they were, they would have kept my sister-in-law on at the higher
wage, rather than lose her skills. Finding someone to replace the skillset
she'd developed during the 12 years with the company (never mind the
experience she'd had prior) would have cost them far more than a salary
increase. The company was highly motivated to keep her as an employee, and
they did everything they could within their budget to assist in her
permanent resident application.

As things stand now, the company was forced to let her leave the country
unemployed, and hire someone else at the same wage (possibly lower), who was
less qualified than her.

Isn't it more that they weren't *willing* to pay the prevailing wage?

I assume you mean "isn't it more likely that they...", and the answer is no.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote on 1/29/2005 11:24:

Perhaps. However, finding a "good lawyer" is less than trivial, just as
finding a competent person in practically any profession is. Two (maybe
three, I forget) different lawyers had been hired (at different times) to
assist with the permanent resident application, but none offered that
advice.

I agree that there are way too many bad immigration lawyers out there. I
have experienced one or two of them myself...
That's when I decided to learn enough about this stuff to be able to
know if a lawyer is trying to BS me.

Regardless, in this case, it's my opinion that the prevailing wage should
have been evaluated in a different context. A non-profit organization isn't
going to pay the same pay scale as might be found at a high-revenue
commercial operation (like Microsoft, Apple, or Sun...three big employers
that hire technical editors), or a for-profit periodical publication (say PC
World or Windows Magazine, or something like that).

And that isn't the case. The prevailing wage is determined by
metropolitan area. The prevailing wage for a specific job in, say, some
small town in the Midwest is less than the prevailing wage for that same
job in Silly Valley, or Seattle, or NYC. The cost of living is of course
lower in small towns as well.

Why should technical editing pay at a non-profit be compared to pay at
companies that are in a decidedly different business? Under this
interpretation of the rules, no non-profit organization can ever hire a
permanent resident applicant.

By the same logic, the non-profit organization wouldn't be able to hire
Americans, either, since they all would go to the companies who pay the
big bucks...

They simply cannot afford to compete with
other employers that are engaged in an entirely different business.

Non-profit does not necessarily mean that they can't afford to pay
competitive salaries...
Non-profit or not, the rules apply to everybody. If a company, for
profit or non-profit, can't afford or is unwilling to pay the going rate
for a specific position in a specific area, they can't sponsor a
Greencard for that position.

increase. The company was highly motivated to keep her as an employee, and
they did everything they could within their budget to assist in her
permanent resident application.

Well, there is the catch right the "within their budget". If they
were really, really interested in keeping her, they would have paid her
the going rate in the area.
In other words, the company was paying lip service to her, but their
actions or rather lack of action spoke louder than their words.
Once she would have gotten the GC, she could have gone to the
higher-paying companies. She couldn't do that as long as she was on a
work visa, hence the company took advantage of her limited ability to
change jobs. And that's what the rules try to prevent.
And, btw, the law doesn't allow to use the experience gained on the job
as an advantage over other applicants who are otherwise qualified for
the job.

In any case, this is getting quite off-topic here, so I set the followup
to alt.visa.us.

-Joe

Joe Feise wrote:

Peter Duniho wrote on 1/29/2005 11:24:


Perhaps. However, finding a "good lawyer" is less than trivial, just
as finding a competent person in practically any profession is. Two
(maybe three, I forget) different lawyers had been hired (at different
times) to assist with the permanent resident application, but none
offered that advice.


I agree that there are way too many bad immigration lawyers out there. I
have experienced one or two of them myself...
That's when I decided to learn enough about this stuff to be able to
know if a lawyer is trying to BS me.

Regardless, in this case, it's my opinion that the prevailing wage
should have been evaluated in a different context. A non-profit
organization isn't going to pay the same pay scale as might be found
at a high-revenue commercial operation (like Microsoft, Apple, or
Sun...three big employers that hire technical editors), or a
for-profit periodical publication (say PC World or Windows Magazine,
or something like that).


And that isn't the case. The prevailing wage is determined by
metropolitan area. The prevailing wage for a specific job in, say, some
small town in the Midwest is less than the prevailing wage for that same
job in Silly Valley, or Seattle, or NYC. The cost of living is of course
lower in small towns as well.

Why should technical editing pay at a non-profit be compared to pay at
companies that are in a decidedly different business? Under this
interpretation of the rules, no non-profit organization can ever hire
a permanent resident applicant.


By the same logic, the non-profit organization wouldn't be able to hire
Americans, either, since they all would go to the companies who pay the
big bucks...

Only if you assume that people decide which company to work for based
purely on salary. Many non-profits pay less for equivalent work than
other companies because they can find people who want to work for them
and are willing to make do with less salary.

They simply cannot afford to compete with other employers that are
engaged in an entirely different business.


Non-profit does not necessarily mean that they can't afford to pay
competitive salaries...

But it frequently means they don't have to in order to attract employees
and can therefore take the money saved and apply it to their primary
mission. Someone who believes in the goals of say, Greenpeace, may
well be willing to work there even if they could make substantially more
elsewhere.

Non-profit or not, the rules apply to everybody. If a company, for
profit or non-profit, can't afford or is unwilling to pay the going rate
for a specific position in a specific area, they can't sponsor a
Greencard for that position.

But the rules aren't flexible enough to recognize substantial
differences in the non-monetary rewards of positions at different
types of employers which result in different salary scales even
though the job qualifications and responsibilities might be similar.

"Joe Feise" wrote in message
...
And that isn't the case. The prevailing wage is determined by metropolitan
area.

So what? That still does not preclude the fact that her salary was compared
to other jobs for employers with vastly different needs and resources. The
employers I mentioned were simply examples of the type of work, not
necessarily THE employers used for the comparison (though, since you don't
know what metropolitan area in which she was employed, you cannot say "this
isn't the case" even so).

Why should technical editing pay at a non-profit be compared to pay at
companies that are in a decidedly different business? Under this
interpretation of the rules, no non-profit organization can ever hire a
permanent resident applicant.

By the same logic, the non-profit organization wouldn't be able to hire
Americans, either, since they all would go to the companies who pay the
big bucks...

Huh? You apparently don't understand what I'm talking about. The point is
that there are employees who WANT to work for the company, albeit at the
reduced pay they offer. Only an American citizen has the option of doing so
on a career basis.

Non-profit does not necessarily mean that they can't afford to pay
competitive salaries...

In this case, it does.

Non-profit or not, the rules apply to everybody.

Therein lies the problem.

If a company, for profit or non-profit, can't afford or is unwilling to
pay the going rate for a specific position in a specific area, they can't
sponsor a Greencard for that position.

Duh. That's exactly what I've been saying. Glad you finally caught up.

Well, there is the catch right the "within their budget". If they were
really, really interested in keeping her, they would have paid her the
going rate in the area.

Bull****. I'm really, really interested in owning a Cessna CJ3. But there
is no way that will ever happen. My motivation doesn't magically allow
things to happen. Likewise, the company can want to keep her 'til the cows
come home, if they can't pay the scale the INS wants them to pay, they can't
keep her as a permanent resident employee.

In other words, the company was paying lip service to her, but their
actions or rather lack of action spoke louder than their words.

Bull**** again. The company was simply unable to do what the INS insisted
they do.

Once she would have gotten the GC, she could have gone to the
higher-paying companies. She couldn't do that as long as she was on a work
visa, hence the company took advantage of her limited ability to change
jobs. And that's what the rules try to prevent.

None of that has ANYTHING to do with this issue.

And, btw, the law doesn't allow to use the experience gained on the job as
an advantage over other applicants who are otherwise qualified for the
job.

Yes, I know. Again, that has nothing to do with this issue.

In any case, this is getting quite off-topic here, so I set the followup
to alt.visa.us.

"Getting"? This was off-topic from the get-go. If you don't want to see
any more discussion, just junk the thread.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Joe Feise" wrote in message
...
And that isn't the case. The prevailing wage is determined by
metropolitan
area.

So what? That still does not preclude the fact that her salary was
compared
to other jobs for employers with vastly different needs and resources.
The
employers I mentioned were simply examples of the type of work, not
necessarily THE employers used for the comparison (though, since you don't
know what metropolitan area in which she was employed, you cannot say
"this
isn't the case" even so).

Why should technical editing pay at a non-profit be compared to pay at
companies that are in a decidedly different business? Under this
interpretation of the rules, no non-profit organization can ever hire a
permanent resident applicant.

By the same logic, the non-profit organization wouldn't be able to hire
Americans, either, since they all would go to the companies who pay the
big bucks...

Huh? You apparently don't understand what I'm talking about. The point
is
that there are employees who WANT to work for the company, albeit at the
reduced pay they offer. Only an American citizen has the option of doing
so
on a career basis.

Non-profit does not necessarily mean that they can't afford to pay
competitive salaries...

In this case, it does.

Non-profit or not, the rules apply to everybody.

Therein lies the problem.

Rules that apply equally to everybody, how absolutely horrid.

Peter Duniho wrote on 1/29/2005 20:30:
"Joe Feise" wrote in message
...

And that isn't the case. The prevailing wage is determined by metropolitan
area.


So what? That still does not preclude the fact that her salary was compared
to other jobs for employers with vastly different needs and resources. The
employers I mentioned were simply examples of the type of work, not
necessarily THE employers used for the comparison (though, since you don't
know what metropolitan area in which she was employed, you cannot say "this
isn't the case" even so).


Why should technical editing pay at a non-profit be compared to pay at
companies that are in a decidedly different business? Under this
interpretation of the rules, no non-profit organization can ever hire a
permanent resident applicant.

By the same logic, the non-profit organization wouldn't be able to hire
Americans, either, since they all would go to the companies who pay the
big bucks...


Huh? You apparently don't understand what I'm talking about. The point is
that there are employees who WANT to work for the company, albeit at the
reduced pay they offer. Only an American citizen has the option of doing so
on a career basis.

The goal of the immigration law is to ensure that no American loses a
job because of an immigrant. It doesn't matter if an immigrant wants to
work for a company. The company has to try and find a qualified American
or Permanent Resident first, and only if they don't find one, then they
can try and sponsor an immigrant. If they don't find one because they
don't pay as much as others, that's not an excuse to sponsor an immigrant.
Immigration Law 101.
If you don't like it, lobby Congress to change it. CIS has to apply the law.

-Joe

In any case, this is getting quite off-topic here, so I set the followup
to alt.visa.us.


"Getting"? This was off-topic from the get-go. If you don't want to see
any more discussion, just junk the thread.

I have no problem with discussing this. In fact, I post quite regularly
on alt.visa.us. There are a number of people there who know a lot more
about immigration than I do. That's why I prefer to have the thread there.
So, again, setting the followup to alt.visa.us.

-Joe

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
news
Rules that apply equally to everybody, how absolutely horrid.

You must work really hard to miss the point by so much.

"Joe Feise" wrote in message
...
The goal of the immigration law is to ensure that no American loses a job
because of an immigrant.

Again, my point is that there are examples (such as the one I've described)
where an immigrant is not causing an American to lose a job.

It doesn't matter if an immigrant wants to work for a company. The company
has to try and find a qualified American or Permanent Resident first, and
only if they don't find one, then they can try and sponsor an immigrant.
If they don't find one because they don't pay as much as others, that's
not an excuse to sponsor an immigrant.

Yes, I know all that. Did I mention that I know quite a few immigrant
workers?

Immigration Law 101.
If you don't like it, lobby Congress to change it. CIS has to apply the
law.

None of what you wrote has anything to do with what I'm talking about.

[...]
So, again, setting the followup to alt.visa.us.

And again, ignoring your idiotic urge to move this thread to somewhere else.

I have no idea why I expected any outcome from my comment other than what
happened. There's always someone, on Usenet, who feels that in spite of
having NO personal knowledge of some situation that they can comment with
any intelligence on the wherefors and wherehows of that situation. This
time it was you (and others), but it's always someone.

I think it's wonderful that there are people so optimistic (such as
yourself, Larry, etc) who feel that our government does a perfect job of
following the spirit (and even letter) of our laws. That sort of optimism
surely improves the world somehow. But it doesn't mean you are right.

Pete

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 00:38:14 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

I think it's wonderful that there are people so optimistic (such as
yourself, Larry, etc) who feel that our government does a perfect job of
following the spirit (and even letter) of our laws.

I believe it was I who pointed out that there are significant
quantities of illegal immigrants crossing the boarder daily; I don't
feel that constitutes the government doing a "perfect job." Or did
you miss that point that seems to contradict your statement above? In
fact, I have often found that the bureaucrat is ignorant of the law,
arbitrary, and unjust. But when confronted with evidence of their
errors, they have little choice but to conform to the law.

That said, it has been my experience, that if one is able to cause the
bureaucrat in question to go on written record in direct opposition to
the law s/he is administrating, s/he is often able to prevail. It
requires knowledge, research and diplomacy, which are often difficult
to muster when one is emotionally involved in the issue. That's why
it is often advantageous to employ a competent attorney.

--

There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
to avoid the real labor of thinking.
-- Sir Joshua Reynolds

Peter Duniho wrote on 1/30/2005 00:38:
"Joe Feise" wrote in message
...

The goal of the immigration law is to ensure that no American loses a job
because of an immigrant.


Again, my point is that there are examples (such as the one I've described)
where an immigrant is not causing an American to lose a job.

How do you know that there wouldn't be a qualified American, if the
company would pay market rate? Presumably, there is no American for the
job only because the company pays less.
So, my point is that your assertion simply is wrong. It can *only* be
determined if there is no American available for the job if the company
is paying the prevailing rate.

I have no idea why I expected any outcome from my comment other than what
happened. There's always someone, on Usenet, who feels that in spite of
having NO personal knowledge of some situation that they can comment with
any intelligence on the wherefors and wherehows of that situation. This
time it was you (and others), but it's always someone.

I only challenged your false assumptions. You were the one who went on
somewhat of a crusade here.

I think it's wonderful that there are people so optimistic (such as
yourself, Larry, etc) who feel that our government does a perfect job of
following the spirit (and even letter) of our laws. That sort of optimism
surely improves the world somehow. But it doesn't mean you are right.

There is lots of stuff wrong with the immigration law and with
immigration law enforcement. But the case you mentioned is not one of
them. In fact, I consider it whining.
To provide some perspective: how would you feel if you, as a Permanent
Resident, married a foreigner, and would not be able to live with your
spouse for over 5 years, because the spouse is not allowed to enter the
US? Or a Permanent Resident adopting a foreign child and not being able
to bring the child to the US?

-Joe