F********r
发帖数: 1748 | 1 明天评论期开始。我想大家关心的大概就是两点：
1. 要求增加140 portability，批准180天后。不要重走perm。
2. 要求取消换相似工作对Supplement J的强制要求。
没进门的最想要1，进了门的最想要2。
1比2更加意义重大，2比1影响的人更多（因为没进门的1最终还是要进门，面临2）。
大家互相帮助，能搞成其中任何一条就是胜利。文采好的写个模板发上来，写信和网上
评论双管齐下。最后努力一下，说不定能够成事。 |
X**J
发帖数: 466 | 2 支持互相帮助，团结一致！！
求同存异，一致对USCIS！ |
N*********9
发帖数: 60 | |
z********g
发帖数: 223 | |
F********r
发帖数: 1748 | 5 评论明天才开始。一旦开始我会上来发链接。
【在 z********g 的大作中提到】
: 给个链接吧
|
l****f
发帖数: 168 | 6 140 portability的可能性不大了，受限于204（j）。
是不是可以求其次 既然之前的140可以永久有效，因为140是基于perm的基础之上批准
的，既然之前140的perm申请，劳工市场都test过，如果新雇主可以证明新工作和原来
的same or similar, 因而要求重新申请140时候免除perm， |
p******i
发帖数: 1358 | 7 这个建议很好
【在 l****f 的大作中提到】
: 140 portability的可能性不大了，受限于204（j）。
: 是不是可以求其次 既然之前的140可以永久有效，因为140是基于perm的基础之上批准
: 的，既然之前140的perm申请，劳工市场都test过，如果新雇主可以证明新工作和原来
: 的same or similar, 因而要求重新申请140时候免除perm，
|
c*******n
发帖数: 2629 | |
h*********n
发帖数: 11319 | 9 顶，同心协力！
【在 F********r 的大作中提到】
: 评论明天才开始。一旦开始我会上来发链接。
|
j****a
发帖数: 551 | 10 论述很正确。顶
【在 F********r 的大作中提到】
: 明天评论期开始。我想大家关心的大概就是两点：
: 1. 要求增加140 portability，批准180天后。不要重走perm。
: 2. 要求取消换相似工作对Supplement J的强制要求。
: 没进门的最想要1，进了门的最想要2。
: 1比2更加意义重大，2比1影响的人更多（因为没进门的1最终还是要进门，面临2）。
: 大家互相帮助，能搞成其中任何一条就是胜利。文采好的写个模板发上来，写信和网上
: 评论双管齐下。最后努力一下，说不定能够成事。
|
|
|
j****a
发帖数: 551 | 11 赞，需要这种办实事的
【在 F********r 的大作中提到】
: 评论明天才开始。一旦开始我会上来发链接。
|
h****1
发帖数: 76 | 12 顶，还是要发声才行。记得前段时间STEM OPT的事情，最后也有了转机。 |
m*********2
发帖数: 178 | 13 顶，2影响面甚广，J Form如果严格执行，那进了门换不了工作也没意思。
是不是可以用这个帖子作为模板来攻击？
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/EB23/32494595.html |
p*********0
发帖数: 264 | 14 顶lz 辛苦了
【在 F********r 的大作中提到】
: 明天评论期开始。我想大家关心的大概就是两点：
: 1. 要求增加140 portability，批准180天后。不要重走perm。
: 2. 要求取消换相似工作对Supplement J的强制要求。
: 没进门的最想要1，进了门的最想要2。
: 1比2更加意义重大，2比1影响的人更多（因为没进门的1最终还是要进门，面临2）。
: 大家互相帮助，能搞成其中任何一条就是胜利。文采好的写个模板发上来，写信和网上
: 评论双管齐下。最后努力一下，说不定能够成事。
|
F********r
发帖数: 1748 | 15 自顶一下。自救的时刻到了。大家都上去发评论吧。
of-
high
【在 F********r 的大作中提到】
: 评论明天才开始。一旦开始我会上来发链接。
|
c********t
发帖数: 267 | |
c******3
发帖数: 6509 | 17 辛苦了，还在阅读原文，稍后写信
btw: 总算知道当年要求按PD分SO的原因了，当年中国排期多8个月，所以去闹，造成我
们现在多等5年 |
a*****s
发帖数: 206 | |
g********f
发帖数: 1112 | |
E*******r
发帖数: 370 | 20 哪位分享一个模板？
最好带有原文条款引用和修改建议。
有了模板，大家积极性就高多了。 |
|
|
p*********g
发帖数: 2998 | 21 1 只要办个perm
2 是无法用任何办法来代替的
2影响比较大 |
B********t
发帖数: 1321 | |
B********t
发帖数: 1321 | 23 我的评论，抛砖引玉，没仔细修饰：
Comment on Supplement J:
This Supplement J form to I-485 is benefiting the employer and lawyers, not
the applicant. Actually, I think the purpose of this Supplement J form is to
prevent applicant whose I-485 has been pending for 180 days changing jobs.
An EVL required in the past will only need the signature of HR, while the
supplement J form will need the lawyers to fill it. Who the lawyers are
working for? The employer. This is absolutely a huge setback of portability
of jobs for applicant whose I-485 has been pending for over 180 days. |
l******4
发帖数: 1105 | 24 in my opinion, the statement will cause backfire. |
l******4
发帖数: 1105 | 25 we had better talk about how the new form will cause inconvenience and
uncertainty for employers, business and community.
for instance, the employers get confused about what they are required to do
since this form is new. It will take employers a while to learn how to deal
with this new requirement.
second, the form does not contribute to reduce the backlog of the long I485
waiting queue. Instead, it will make the review of I485 even more burdensome
. It can be expected that USCIS officers will have to spend much longer
time on reviewing each application if this form J is required. They will
have to read the form more than one time probably to decide the similarity
of jobs.
Third, as one ID has asked, can we buy houses before we get green cards? The
uncertainty that will be caused by this new requirement may prevent some
potential home buyers away from purchasing homes.
|
l******4
发帖数: 1105 | 26 中文；
J表阻碍人才流动，对雇主，经济，创新不利。
USCIS的Officer要更辛苦了。（希望能激起他们内部反对的呼声）
大家因为485的不确定，不敢买房买车。
两地夫妻，不敢辞职，违背人伦。 |
l******t
发帖数: 238 | 27 ding!
【在 l******4 的大作中提到】
: 中文；
: J表阻碍人才流动，对雇主，经济，创新不利。
: USCIS的Officer要更辛苦了。（希望能激起他们内部反对的呼声）
: 大家因为485的不确定，不敢买房买车。
: 两地夫妻，不敢辞职，违背人伦。
|
m*********2
发帖数: 178 | 28 我polish了一下，看看是否有问题：
I want to comment on how the new supplement J form will cause inconvenience
and uncertainty for employers and I-485 appliers.
First, the employers will get confused whether this means a new kind of
sponsorship, which is an extra burden.
second, the form does not reduce the backlog of the long I-485 waiting
queue. Instead, it will make the review of I-485 even more burdensome. It
can be expected that USCIS officers will have to spend much longer time on
reviewing each application if this form J is required. They will have to
read the form more than one time probably to decide the similarity of jobs.
Third, The uncertainty of I-485 applier who want to port their similar jobs
prevents them change their job and economy growth, i.e. scare away those
potential home buyers.
Fourth, this Supplement J form to I-485 is benefiting the employer and
lawyers, not the applicant. An EVL required in the past will only need the
signature of HR, while the supplement J form will need the lawyers to fill
it. This is absolutely a huge setback of portability of jobs for applicant
whose I-485 has been pending for over 180 days.
do
deal
I485
burdensome
【在 l******4 的大作中提到】
: we had better talk about how the new form will cause inconvenience and
: uncertainty for employers, business and community.
: for instance, the employers get confused about what they are required to do
: since this form is new. It will take employers a while to learn how to deal
: with this new requirement.
: second, the form does not contribute to reduce the backlog of the long I485
: waiting queue. Instead, it will make the review of I485 even more burdensome
: . It can be expected that USCIS officers will have to spend much longer
: time on reviewing each application if this form J is required. They will
: have to read the form more than one time probably to decide the similarity
|
l******4
发帖数: 1105 | 29 我觉得第4点就只说JFORM is absolutely a huge setback of portability of jobs。
别的对律师，雇主有利的，最好别提。人家才是美国人，也是大钱。他们的利益是
USCIS真正考虑的。 |
B********t
发帖数: 1321 | |
|
|
m**********9
发帖数: 307 | 31 I already submitted my comments, bashing j form.
Thx a lot 楼主 we should come together and fight this |
m**********9
发帖数: 307 | 32 I already submitted my comments, bashing j form.
Thx a lot 楼主 we should come together and fight this |
i******r
发帖数: 793 | 33 原文太长。。
能否给点摘要，提示一下应该看哪些章节
【在 F********r 的大作中提到】
: 自顶一下。自救的时刻到了。大家都上去发评论吧。
:
: of-
: high
|
f*****s
发帖数: 219 | 34 提醒大家，反对时要清晰具体说明反对那一条款，第几大项第几小项，再引用原文，比
如原文里没有提到过Form J, 而是说"Supplement Form", 我们如果只简单说Form J，
等于没说到点子，虽然实际上是为职业移民说话，但表面要上纲上线，一切归根到美国
经济，代表美国先进生产力，先进文化和美国广大人民的根本利益
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 1.0.6
【在 X**J 的大作中提到】
: 支持互相帮助，团结一致！！
: 求同存异，一致对USCIS！
|
c******3
发帖数: 6509 | 35 最好不要模板，根据自己情况抱怨对自己的影响，要是千篇一律的，可能大家的回复都
会被忽略掉
想要自己的福利就多花点时间，虽然我是2015 PD，还没确定拿到PD，但是我花了40分
钟写和改
【在 E*******r 的大作中提到】
: 哪位分享一个模板？
: 最好带有原文条款引用和修改建议。
: 有了模板，大家积极性就高多了。
|
F********r
发帖数: 1748 | 36 感谢。 我也是洋洋洒洒写了一大篇。希望大家多花点时间。
说到底，这是我们自己的切身利益。
【在 c******3 的大作中提到】
: 最好不要模板，根据自己情况抱怨对自己的影响，要是千篇一律的，可能大家的回复都
: 会被忽略掉
: 想要自己的福利就多花点时间，虽然我是2015 PD，还没确定拿到PD，但是我花了40分
: 钟写和改
|
a****q
发帖数: 10636 | |
l*********d
发帖数: 315 | 38 以下一帖以集思广益
Comment:
I am an immigrant myself in the final steps of obtaining my LPR status.
I do not support the reform in its current shape, for the proposed changes
is contradictory to President Obama's EO for modernizing the immigration
system for US' competitiveness in 21st century.
Specifically,
1. Additional I485 supplement J forms required further processing effort
from USCIS, and will EXACERBATE the already cumbersome and severely back-
logged 485 application process, and will incur many more procedural RFE if J
-supplement form is mandatory.
2. The I485 J supplement form necessitate unnecessary attestation burden on
employer from private sector and small business owners (e.g. human resource
hours/attorney fees/communications with previous employers who held original
I140 but unwilling to cooperate, etc). Furthermore, many of the potential
employers are small start-up company who were originally able to hire
through 485-EAD, in order to stay competitive in high-tech business.
In addition, the proposed rule is procedurally not feasible. Let me take the
following requirement as an example:
To properly file a Supplement J form,
"
What Evidence Must You Submit With Supplement J?
A letter from the employer on the employer’s letterhead describing the new
job offer referenced in Part 5. of Supplement J (including job requirements
and duties in the new position), and HOW the new job offer as described in
Part 5. of Supplement J is in the same or a similar occupational
classification as the job offer in the underlying Form I-140."
As we are aware of, the PERM and I140 are by law the property of the
sponsoring employer, who is not obligated to provide such job description
information to the succeeding new employer. It remains in dark how USCIS can
ensure a smooth transfer of important legal information between the
involved parties.
Based on the above analysis, I call for revocation of the premature reform
in the proposed rule in making.
Thank you for considering my concerns.
A respectful LEGAL immigrant
我想大家关心的大概就是两点：1. 要求增加140 portability，批准180天后。不要重
走perm。2. 要求取消换相似工作对Supplement J的强制要求。没进门........
【在 F********r 的大作中提到】
: 感谢。 我也是洋洋洒洒写了一大篇。希望大家多花点时间。
: 说到底，这是我们自己的切身利益。
|
w********d
发帖数: 1131 | 39 你们觉得comments会有用吗？对对美国的任何改革都失去了信心，看看ob的任何改革，
都是no zuo no die的节奏。 |
F********r
发帖数: 1748 | 40 有用。
你们觉得comments会有用吗？对对美国的任何改革都失去了信心，看看ob的任何改革，
都是no zuo no die的节奏。
【在 w********d 的大作中提到】
: 你们觉得comments会有用吗？对对美国的任何改革都失去了信心，看看ob的任何改革，
: 都是no zuo no die的节奏。
|
|
|
l****y
发帖数: 96 | |
w********d
发帖数: 1131 | 42 有谁说说靠comments能改变proposal rules的？ |
s**l
发帖数: 869 | 43 我的回复，超了字数，分了两次提交
This proposed rule (USCIS-2015-0008-0001) suppose to retain EB-1/2/3
immigrant workers, however on the contrary the proposed rule adds more
obstacles to the EB-1/2/3 immigrant workers to continue stay in USA. The
proposed rule does NOT make the immigration procedure easier for EB-1/2/3
immigrant workers. With all due respect, I strongly recommend that the
proposed rule is NOT enacted at all, if key components of the rule cannot be
modified to truly benefit the EB-1/2/3 immigrant workers.
I, a LEGAL EB immigrant worker, am strongly against this proposed rule,
specifically for below items in the draft:
(1) Section IV.A.2 Job Portability Under AC21 for Certain Applicants for
Adjustment of Status
(2) The proposed rule does not update AC21 to fit for the changed
immigration situation that blocks a large portion of EB-1/2/3 immigrant
workers from changing jobs or employers under current AC21.
(1) Section IV.A.2 Job Portability Under AC21 for Certain Applicants for
Adjustment of Status
In this section, "DHS is proposing to clarify and improve policies and
procedures related to the job portability protections provided by section
106(c) of AC21." The proposed rule does not either improve the procedure or
clarify the policies provided by section 106(c) of AC21. First, the proposed
addition of section 204(j) does NOT enhance the ability of EB-1/2/3
immigrant workers to change jobs or employers if they have I-485 (Adjust of
Status) application pending for over 180 days; on the opposite, the new
section 204(j) makes it more difficult for EB-1/2/3 immigrant workers to
change jobs or employers.
First and foremost, in current practice, when the EB-1/2/3 immigrant worker
is promoted, or change jobs or employers to a same or similar position,
there is no requirement for either the EB-1/2/3 immigrant worker nor the
employer to notify USCIS or any other government of such change unless the
original immigration petition (such as I-140, I485) is of question or need
further clarifications. This addition of section 204(j), with its generated
supplemental J for form I-485, requires additional sponsorship from the
employer to the immigrant worker, and also adds unnecessary procedural
obstacles to all the players, the immigration worker, the employer, and the
USCIS. This addition of section 204(j) is literally against principle to
improve the procedure provided by section 106(c) of AC21. This section 204(j
) requests duplicated information that should have been previously provided,
such as the information about the immigrant worker, the employer, and the
job, so it is also against the paperwork reduction spirit of the government
and common sense. Questioning the Bona Fide of a job offer for EB-1/2/3
immigrant worker is against the spirit of the U.S. that considers people
innocent unless proved otherwise, besides the fact that most, if not all, EB
-1/2/3 immigrant workers enter U.S. legally and should not be treated as a
criminal.
Besides questioning the principle of the section 204(j), I also oppose the
implementation of this section and its Supplement J. More specifically, the
form "Form I-485, Supplement J", e.g. "Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer
or Request for Job Portability Under INA Section 204(j)" as of website "http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewIC?ref_nbr=201511-1615-006&icID=219005", adds obstacles to EB-1/2/3 immigration workers to change jobs or employers. In Part 4, the employer is requested to provide business related information, such as Current Number of U.S. Employees (Part 4.7), Gross Annual Income (Part 4.8), Net Annual Income (Part 4.9), NAICS Code (Part 4.10). The intent of USCIS to obtain such information is understandable, however, to provide accurate information on these requests could be an extra burden to the employer, and private company/employer may not want to disclose their business related information even they want to hire the immigrant worker. This part 4 of information request makes either new employer or the current employer reluctant to hire EB1/2/3 immigrant workers. To make the work easier and same time obtain needed information, categorized options should be provided to certain information requests. For example, Current Number of U.S Employees (Part. 4.7) should allow the employer to select from given range-type options such as (but not limited to) 1~50, 51~100, 100~500, 500~1000, 1000~5000, 5000~10000, 10000+. Gross Annual Income (Part 4.8) and Net Annual Income (Part 4.9) should also allow the employer to select from given range-type options such as (but not limited to) $0~$100,000; $100,001 ~ $1,000,000; $1,000,001 ~ $100,000,000; Above $100,000,000.
(2) The proposed rule does not update AC21 to fit for the changed
immigration situation that blocks a large portion of EB-1/2/3 immigrant
workers from changing jobs or employers under current AC21.
In Part 5 of the supplement J, Information About the Job Offer, the employer
is asked to enter the SOC Code (Part.5.2) along with the job title, and
also the nontechnical description of job (Part. 5.3). It is nice to see that
the proposed rule considers multiple factors in evaluating if the new job
is same or similar to that specified in I-140, based on AC21. However a
large portion of EB-1/2/3 immigrant workers becomes limited by AC21, because
the immigration situation changes from the time when AC21 was issued. A
large portion of the EB-1/2/3 immigrant workers wait 5~15 years or longer
for the green card visa number to become available. However, median employee
tenure is 4.7 year for men and 4.5 year for women in 2014, according to
Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/news.release/tenure.nr0.htm. When change a job or employer, it is very common to get a senior level position which could easily have different responsibilities but is a natural in one's career path. Besides focus the immigrant worker only in the same or similar job, the rule, e.g. AC21, should be updated to allow the long-waiting immigrant worker to advance in their career in the same company or with a new employer. I would recommend the authority to update AC21 to allow job portability for either (1) change to same or similar job; or (2) career advancement to a senior level but different job responsibility after certain years of working on the job described by I-140.
In an example, Tom joined company Atoms in Houston as a Mechanical Engineer
in 2009. The corresponding SOC code is 17-2141.00, with a level 2 prevailing
wage of $63,752, when he submitted the I-140 application in 2011. During 5
years working at company Atoms, he gained experience and earned more trust.
He began taking more and more responsibilities and eventually started
managing complex mechanical engineering related projects and also supervises
the work of junior mechanical engineers. During the period Tom also filed I
-485 in 2015 when his priority date became current. In 2015, after 6 years
working at company Atoms and the I-485 pended for over 180 days, Tom finds
another job at company Beatles in Los Angeles as a project manager. In SOC
scope, the project manager job falls into the category of Electrical
Engineering Technologists that has a SOC code of 17-3029.02 and a level 4
prevailing wage of $95,659. Tom loves the new job and company Beatles loves
Tom's background and skills. However under current AC21, the new job has a
big chance to be determined as not a "same or similar" job as the one
described in I-140, which is somewhat true as Tom becomes a better worker in
the past 6 years and he can now make more contributions to the employer.
Eventually Tom and company Beatles have to give up to the potential
immigration challenge. Due to the retrogression of the I-485 priority date,
Tom likely needs to wait 2~3 years before his I-485 can be approved. In this
case Tom's right to advance his career is blocked by the out-of-dated AC21,
for this time and for multiple times in the future. There is financial loss
and mental torture due to the limitation from AC21 in the U.S. of freedom.
In summary, I strongly recommend the proposed rule not be enacted unless
AC21 is updated to fit modern immigration situation and the rule is truly
benefit EB-1/2/3 immigrant workers. At the same time I strongly urge rule
makers to open hearings for the EB-1/2/3 immigrant workers to voice the true
needs and help improve current immigration rules for themselves.
Thank you and happy New Year!
【在 F********r 的大作中提到】
: 有用。
:
: 你们觉得comments会有用吗？对对美国的任何改革都失去了信心，看看ob的任何改革，
: 都是no zuo no die的节奏。
|
F********r
发帖数: 1748 | 44 感谢牛人。我还没时间仔细看完你的所有内容。下周再发的时候一定会有所借鉴，
be
【在 s**l 的大作中提到】
: 我的回复，超了字数，分了两次提交
: This proposed rule (USCIS-2015-0008-0001) suppose to retain EB-1/2/3
: immigrant workers, however on the contrary the proposed rule adds more
: obstacles to the EB-1/2/3 immigrant workers to continue stay in USA. The
: proposed rule does NOT make the immigration procedure easier for EB-1/2/3
: immigrant workers. With all due respect, I strongly recommend that the
: proposed rule is NOT enacted at all, if key components of the rule cannot be
: modified to truly benefit the EB-1/2/3 immigrant workers.
: I, a LEGAL EB immigrant worker, am strongly against this proposed rule,
: specifically for below items in the draft:
|
D*****I
发帖数: 987 | 45 379
Comments Received????????版上在线多少人?
[发表自未名空间手机版 - m.mitbbs.com] |
j****a
发帖数: 551 | 46 已评，大家多努力啊
【在 F********r 的大作中提到】
: 感谢牛人。我还没时间仔细看完你的所有内容。下周再发的时候一定会有所借鉴，
:
: be
|
F********r
发帖数: 1748 | 47 You can comment multiple times and that's what I'm doing right now. Alter
your comment each time for sure. You don't have to always write long
comments. I do short and long comments alternatively and anonymously.
【在 D*****I 的大作中提到】
: 379
: Comments Received????????版上在线多少人?
: [发表自未名空间手机版 - m.mitbbs.com]
|
y******u
发帖数: 804 | 48 The United States needs to provide I-140-based EAD with no string attached
to truly implement retention of EB-1/2/3 Immigrant Talents rather than let
them bring their jobs and associated economic prosperity back to their home
countries. |
p*********w
发帖数: 606 | 49 已comment，主要是支持140 portability. 有时间还会继续。 |
y******u
发帖数: 804 | 50 You might as well have named the workers as slaves in this regulation. It is
blatantly clear that this regulation has been designed by an industry that
benefits greatly from this unending stream of indentured H1B slaves who can
never escape the iron clad immigration hold. The losers in this game are the
American tax payers and the high tech slaves. The industry clearly prefers
to hire foreigners on H1B visas who can work for far less and aren't a
flight risk for most of their productive lives. You can also see this
playing out in academia where a large number of faculty members are now
foreign born and are working for peanuts on non tenure track positions.
The time to end this slavery is now. Please do not be on the wrong side of
history by codifying this modern day slavery as the law of the land. I've
been in this country for 15 long years, always afraid to speak my mind at
the workplace, and afraid to go out on my own and start a company that can
create jobs for Americans. I'm at a point where I see my US born children
sponsoring my green card sooner than my employment based GC! |
|
|
x**8
发帖数: 1939 | 51 最重要的一点204(j)是已经执行的法律，还是新proposed?
看您老的comment，怎么觉得有点儿晕？
我理解204j已经是法律了吧？不是这次proposed吧？
be
【在 s**l 的大作中提到】
: 我的回复，超了字数，分了两次提交
: This proposed rule (USCIS-2015-0008-0001) suppose to retain EB-1/2/3
: immigrant workers, however on the contrary the proposed rule adds more
: obstacles to the EB-1/2/3 immigrant workers to continue stay in USA. The
: proposed rule does NOT make the immigration procedure easier for EB-1/2/3
: immigrant workers. With all due respect, I strongly recommend that the
: proposed rule is NOT enacted at all, if key components of the rule cannot be
: modified to truly benefit the EB-1/2/3 immigrant workers.
: I, a LEGAL EB immigrant worker, am strongly against this proposed rule,
: specifically for below items in the draft:
|
c******3
发帖数: 6509 | 52 系统问题，我的评论好几天了还没显示出来
【在 D*****I 的大作中提到】
: 379
: Comments Received????????版上在线多少人?
: [发表自未名空间手机版 - m.mitbbs.com]
|
l******t
发帖数: 238 | |
D*****I
发帖数: 987 | 54 3次，一天一次。
我昨天发的，大意,allowing true job portability,releasing the strings
attached to the job for these immigrant workers and letting them move,
relocate and change jobs freely will benefit the economy and overall wages
for American workers since the petitioner (employer)will not suppress the
immigrant workers wages and will always only file immigration paper work
for the best talent.
So I strongly support no re_PERM for 140filed after 180days. And I'm
strongly against the supplemental J_FORM since it adds more paper work for
the new employer who might not be familiar with immigration issues and not
willing to cooperate to certify the job.
[发表自未名空间手机版 - m.mitbbs.com] |
F********r
发帖数: 1748 | 55 刚完成我的每天一评，上来自己顶一下。
【在 F********r 的大作中提到】
: You can comment multiple times and that's what I'm doing right now. Alter
: your comment each time for sure. You don't have to always write long
: comments. I do short and long comments alternatively and anonymously.
|
l******4
发帖数: 1105 | |
D*****I
发帖数: 987 | 57 我已经掐了十来次了，主要是这个讨厌的J FORM,大家努力，使劲掐。
[发表自未名空间手机版 - m.mitbbs.com] |
D*****I
发帖数: 987 | 58 我已经掐了十来次了，主要是这个讨厌的J FORM,大家努力，使劲掐。
[发表自未名空间手机版 - m.mitbbs.com] |
g*******m
发帖数: 999 | |
F********r
发帖数: 1748 | 60 表想太多。每天一评。
【在 g*******m 的大作中提到】
: 顶！不知道烙印很我们意见一致么
|
|
|
D*****I
发帖数: 987 | 61 语法也许没有仔细斟酌。又掐了一次
Legal immigrants deserves more. They pay taxes without enjoy benefits (such
as scholarships for kids).
They are talented people who might create another Google,Yahoo,Tesla, if the
chains on their freedom are released.
They obey laws.They are contributors,not burdens of the society. Why the so
called job portability comes with strings attached. Releasing the chains
will only benefit the economy overall. If true job portability granted,
employers who filed immigration petition can not suppress wages because they
have no place to go. And employers will only hire true talented people
rather than cheap labor. Treating these immigrant workers like slaves is
shortsighted. The supplemental J FORM is going to do exactly the opposite to
what this rule claimed to do. I heard many cases that human resources
refuse to even put job duties to employment verification letter,let alone
sign their names under oath.(as required by J FORM). Since human resources
usually are familiar with engineering,science professions, it's
understandable that they don't want to put their signature under oath. No
body wants to get involved with unfamiliar territory while risking
jeopardize their careers unintentionally. As a result, either employees will
hesitate to change jobs or not,or employers will hesitate the hire best
talent they need.
[发表自未名空间手机版 - m.mitbbs.com] |
D*****I
发帖数: 987 | 62 链接在首页。
[发表自未名空间手机版 - m.mitbbs.com] |
e******n
发帖数: 3435 | 63 刚刚实名+地址comment了。
【在 F********r 的大作中提到】
: 表想太多。每天一评。
|
b******y
发帖数: 168 | 64 这改动也太小了吧，我感觉不该就这么满足啊，反对现在的提议，要求ead可以吗 |
h*********n
发帖数: 11319 | 65 请问版主，这个帖子是不是应该置顶？这么重要的内容， 刚才找了一阵子才找到。
【在 F********r 的大作中提到】
: 表想太多。每天一评。
|
F********r
发帖数: 1748 | 66 评论还有一个月结束。大家不要懈怠。有时间就上去评一下。
【在 F********r 的大作中提到】
: 表想太多。每天一评。
|
D*****I
发帖数: 987 | 67 今天的评论：
The requirement of supplemental J Form is ridiculous and against the
President's intention to promote job portability for legal immigrants.
Do you know for legal immigrants from China, India, the waiting time from
Perm filing to green card issued is up to 15 years? imagine your self being
stuck in the same job for 15 years? Any body will develop lots of new skill
sets that are probably more comprehensive than the initial PERM job
description covered and not initially envisioned（ just like the tech world
is evolving) . Enforcing skills sets same or how similar to original PERM
job was filed is ridiculous. In addition, such paperwork is against the
paperwork reduction act. I'm strongly against the Supplemental J FORM. |
D*****I
发帖数: 987 | 68 顶一下。今天评论版面看到的三评论都是老美发的。说美国不缺TECH WORKERS。不要
IMPORT TECH WORKERS.大家去发声啊 |
F********r
发帖数: 1748 | 69 感谢！大家一定要加油。
要求140ead的评论由于烙印的参与非常多。但是反J表的很少，只有几个老中在发。
：今天的评论：
： |
P*******J
发帖数: 52 | 70 刚刚参考DANSHUI的大作发表了一下反对意见，谢谢！大家继续灌水加油。 |
|
|
x**8
发帖数: 1939 | 71 是的，看起来形势很严峻，以前我一直没当回事，今天才发了一篇，
【在 D*****I 的大作中提到】
: 顶一下。今天评论版面看到的三评论都是老美发的。说美国不缺TECH WORKERS。不要
: IMPORT TECH WORKERS.大家去发声啊
|
