残疾人的世界是什么样子的# Heart - 心情好么？
N*g
1 楼
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr3012/report#nation
Opposing Comments
Today at 11:31am bradphi in Arizona's 3rd District
I oppose H.R. 3012: Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act because...While
it is not a perfect solution, the per-country limit ensures that no one
country monopolizes the employment based immigration system. If this cap is
removed, two countries (India and China) will monopolize the employment
based immigration system to the detriment of over 180 other countries. This
7% per country limit is already ignored through a spill over rule, which
benefits India and China greatly. At this point it is safe to assume that in
excess of over 50% of all EB green cards are going to India.
The quota acts as a safeguard to ensure some measure of distribution
throughout applicants from other countries. Changes to this system do not
solve the underlying issues with the employment based system, which is pure
supply and demand issue.
The motto of the United States is E Pluribus Unum, and a situation where two
countries monopolize greater than 90% of the visas would not be a true
representation of this statement.
The immigration system has many flaws, but this bill would only exacerbate
these flaws. I strongly oppose this bill and urge you to do the same where
possible.
Thank you.
Tue at 10:32pm Rakesh in Maryland's 8th District
America need diversity rather than people from two highly populated country
like India or China. If this Bill get approved, America will be full of
people from India and China. We have to remember India and China combined is
more than half of world population.
Tue at 7:10pm cdngreen in North Carolina's 9th District
India and China are already taking up more than 50% or 70%
of the allocated visas and this would only give them an unfair advantage. No
single country should monopolize the immigrant visa. the very same
country who would be benefited from this bill has been known to abuse the
visa and gaming the system.
India and china have already more than 7% of the quota by the
spill over rule.
This bill does not solve the real issue, we need more quota not shifting
problem from left pocket to right pocket.
Tue at 11:55am VirginiaFerguson in Florida's 24th District
While it is not a perfect solution, the per country limit ensures that no
one country monopolizes the employment based immigration system. If this cap
is removed, two countries (namely India and China) will essentially
monopolise the employment based immigration system to the detriment of over
180 other countries.
Mon at 11:13pm PaulvanBrenk in Washington's 7th District
The per country limit ensures that no one country monopolizes the employment
based immigration system. If we remove this cap, certain countries that are
known to have abused the employment based immigration system via body shops
, sweat shops and employee exploitation, will prevent the genuine talented
individuals from other countries to immigrate.
The argument, often used in favor of this bill, is that American businesses
will be able to hire more high skilled immigrants. That is a fallacy, since
this bill doesn't increase the total number of employment based visas
available each year. So, not only that American companies will not be able
to hire any more skilled immigrants than they are hiring now, but they will
be strictly limited of hiring Indian and Chinese nationals for years to come
- no other country would be able to compete with the overwhelming inflow of
green card applicants from those countries - India in particular. The
process would not create diversity in the immigrant labor force and will be
dominated by Indian citizens.
Thu at 1:52pm nicholas80 in Florida's 22nd District
I oppose H.R. 3012: Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act because...While
it is not a perfect solution, the per-country limit ensures that no one
country monopolizes the employment based immigration system. If this cap is
removed, two countries (India and China) will monopolize the employment
based immigration system to the detriment of over 180 other countries. This
7% per country limit is already ignored through a spill over rule, which
benefits India and China greatly. At this point it is safe to assume that in
excess of over 50% of all EB green cards are going to India.
The quota acts as a safeguard to ensure some measure of distribution
throughout applicants from other countries. Changes to this system do not
solve the underlying issues with the employment based system, which is pure
supply and demand issue.
The motto of the United States is E Pluribus Unum, and a situation where two
countries monopolize greater than 90% of the visas would not be a true
representation of this statement.
The immigration system has many flaws, but this bill would only exacerbate
these flaws. I strongly oppose this bill since this bill and urge you to do
the same where possible
October 3 illusions77 in New Jersey's 5th District
This will kill the diversity that immigration needs. The only countries that
this will benefit will be India and China. The rest of the EB3 Rest of the
world applicants will now have to wait an additional 3~4 years just so that
India and China can move ahead. This is not fair and does not fix the issue
at hand. I propose that congress propose recapturing the lost visa's that
were due but not given due to various administrative purposes. Please do not
pass this bill, and help solve the immigration problem rather than adding a
band aide to it.
Thanks!
September 30 akwasi in New Jersey's 10th District
The bill will eliminate the diversity in the employment base category and
with this bill only 2 countries(India and China) will consume the yearly
allocated visa for all employment visas for about 3 to 5 years before any
other country will have a chance to get a visa. Indians and Chinese are
trying to push this bill for their benefit by creating a 10year backlog for
the Rest Of the World (ROW), so please oppose this bill in order to help
with the permanent green card for employers seeking permanent stay
September 30 Sara1 in Florida's 20th District
This bill is proposed to remove the per country cap that has been put in
place to ensure diversity in the employment base permanent stay in the US
1)Currently if the bill is passed, it will mean that only applicants from
India and China will use all the 28%(about 40,000 visas) awarded to EB3
category of the 140,000/year(all Employment Base visas) for concurrent of 3-
5years before anyone from ROW(Rest Of the World). This means Only India and
China will have to use (40,000visas x 5 continuous years = 200,000visas)
before anyone else in the Rest of the World (ROW)category can get even 1visa
. This clearly shows the huge influx of applicants from those 2 countries(
India and China).
2. Without the current country cap, there will be no diversity in the
employment base for qualified employees from different countries.
3. If this bill pass, it will mean that the already 6year backlogged EB3
category for the ROW members which is currently in 2005 will extend the
backlog to 10+ years for everyone in the ROW(Rest of the World)
September 29 HonestMan in Pennsylvania's 3rd District
I oppose H.R. 3012 ("To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based")
because the per country limit ensures that no one country monopolizes the
employment based immigration system. If we remove this cap, certain country
that are known to have abused the employment based immigration system via
body shops, sweat shops and employee exploitation, will prevent the genuine
talented individuals from other countries to immigrate. There is no cap on
student visa and look at the recent news of how one country is abusing
student visa program in California, Virginia and other places.
The argument, often used in favor of this bill is that Indian nationals are
waiting while other small countries cannot reach their cap of 7%. But the
fact is when other countries are not reaching their cap, the remaining visa
goes to india. You can review the number of visas Indian nationals received
in each of the last several years and you will see India is receiving 30% -
40% of available visas, which is a lot more than the cap of 7%.
I strongly oppose this bill since this bill is very parochial in its scope
and only benefits one country.
September 29 peterterra in Connecticut's 4th District
It would stop diversity in visa distribution. India and China already get
the majority of it. This bill would cause unfairness in the immigration
system.
September 29 goodlooker123 in Colorado's 1st District
The county cap has a purpose. It was created to maintain diversity otherwise
a specific group will flood the legal immigration system.
If you look at the history, legal immigration system has been abused so
badly from people from India left and right.
Just a few years ago, H1B would fill up just on the first week of April and
more than half of the people were Indians. It stopped dramatically as soon
as USCIS fielded its people to see what was going on. Most of these H1Bs
were coming from Indian consultants and body shops (name commonly used by
Indians for local consultants).
There were two incidents recently where two private universities owned by
Indian Nationals were bringing people from India on student visas.
If you look on the internet, you will be surprised to see how the Indian
nationals are abusing this immigration system in so many different ways.
Even if half of these people are restrained from committing these frauds,
half of the problem will be resolved.
It is for the reasons above and many others, that country cap should be in
place otherwise there will be chaos in legal immigrations system.
September 28 IrishSF in California's 8th District
I am writing as your constituent in the 8th Congressional district of
California. I wish to state my opposition to H.R.3012 - To amend the
Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the per-country numerical
limitation for employment-based immigrants.
While it is not a perfect solution, the per country limit ensures that no
one country monopolizes the employment based immigration system. If this cap
is removed, two countries (namely India and China) will essentially
monopolise the employment based immigration system to the detriment of over
180 other countries. This quota is already ignored through a spill over rule
which benefits Indina and China greatly. However, the quota acts as a
safeguard to ensure some measure of distribution throughout the the other
applicant countries.
The motto of the United States is E Pluribus Unum, and a situation where two
countries monopolize greater than 90% of the visas would not be a true
representation of this statement, which has come to have greater meaning
than the Founding Fathers intended.
The immigration system has many flaws, but this bill would ecaserbate these
flaws. I urge you to oppose this bill
September 28 teabaggranny in Missouri's 7th District
I oppose H.R. 3012 ("To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based")
because...i don't want the limits raised for familys.we need to reform it
but those coming into this country should have something to offer .close our
borders now
September 27 jr8rdt in Missouri's 1st District
I oppose H.R. 3012 ("To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based")
because the per country limit ensures that no one country monopolizes the
employment based immigration system. If we remove this cap, certain country
that are known to have abused the employment based immigration system via
body shops, sweat shops and employee exploitation, will prevent the genuine
talented individuals from other countries to immigrate. The biggest lie
about this bill is , unlike the proponent of the bill says, there is a 6
years waiting period for EB3 visa category. So the argument that only the
Indians are waiting for quota for years is a lie and not true. The fact the
matter is everybody is waiting in line. The bill keeps saying that there is
no winner or loser if it passes. Clearly this is another lie, the losers are
the non Indian /Chinese immigrants who are waiting patiently in line . We
have per country quota laws for a reason , simply by eliminating one
equation but ignoring to consider the other equation is just simply not fair
. By removing the per country quota without increasing the visa numbers is
a grand mistake.
September 27 gchope2k6 in Virginia's 11th District
I am writing as your constituent in the 11th Congressional district of
Virginia.
The per country limit ensures that no one country monopolizes the employment
based immigration system. If we remove this cap, certain countries that are
known to have abused the employment based immigration system via body shops
, sweat shops and employee exploitation, will prevent the genuine talented
individuals from other countries to immigrate.
The argument, often used in favor of this bill, is that American businesses
will be able to hire more high skilled immigrants. That is a fallacy, since
this bill doesn't increase the total number of employment based visas
available each year. So, not only that American companies will not be able
to hire any more skilled immigrants than they are hiring now, but they will
be strictly limited of hiring Indian and Chinese nationals for years to come
- no other country would be able to compete with the overwhelming inflow of
green card applicants from those countries - India in particular. The
process would not create diversity in the immigrant labor force and will be
dominated by Indian citizens.
September 27 gchope2k6 in Virginia's 11th District
I am writing as your constituent in the 11th Congressional district of
Virginia.
The per country limit ensures that no one country monopolizes the employment
based immigration system. If we remove this cap, certain countries that are
known to have abused the employment based immigration system via body shops
, sweat shops and employee exploitation, will prevent the genuine talented
individuals from other countries to immigrate.
The argument, often used in favor of this bill, is that American businesses
will be able to hire more high skilled immigrants. That is a fallacy, since
this bill doesn't increase the total number of employment based visas
available each year. So, not only that American companies will not be able
to hire any more skilled immigrants than they are hiring now, but they will
be strictly limited of hiring Indian and Chinese nationals for years to come
- no other country would be able to compete with the overwhelming inflow of
green card applicants from those countries - India in particular. The
process would not create diversity in the immigrant labor force and will be
dominated by Indian citizens.
September 26 tvoya in Maryland's 8th District
I oppose H.R. 3012 ("To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based")
because...the limitation on per country capita was created for a reason and
eliminate it would mean the green cards only for citizens of China and India
- no other country would be able to compete with overwhelming inflow of
green card applicants from those countries - India in particular. The
process would not create diversity in immigrant labor force and will
dominate by India's citizens. I strongly oppose H.R. 3012 bill !
Sincerely,
MD resident
Opposing Comments
Today at 11:31am bradphi in Arizona's 3rd District
I oppose H.R. 3012: Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act because...While
it is not a perfect solution, the per-country limit ensures that no one
country monopolizes the employment based immigration system. If this cap is
removed, two countries (India and China) will monopolize the employment
based immigration system to the detriment of over 180 other countries. This
7% per country limit is already ignored through a spill over rule, which
benefits India and China greatly. At this point it is safe to assume that in
excess of over 50% of all EB green cards are going to India.
The quota acts as a safeguard to ensure some measure of distribution
throughout applicants from other countries. Changes to this system do not
solve the underlying issues with the employment based system, which is pure
supply and demand issue.
The motto of the United States is E Pluribus Unum, and a situation where two
countries monopolize greater than 90% of the visas would not be a true
representation of this statement.
The immigration system has many flaws, but this bill would only exacerbate
these flaws. I strongly oppose this bill and urge you to do the same where
possible.
Thank you.
Tue at 10:32pm Rakesh in Maryland's 8th District
America need diversity rather than people from two highly populated country
like India or China. If this Bill get approved, America will be full of
people from India and China. We have to remember India and China combined is
more than half of world population.
Tue at 7:10pm cdngreen in North Carolina's 9th District
India and China are already taking up more than 50% or 70%
of the allocated visas and this would only give them an unfair advantage. No
single country should monopolize the immigrant visa. the very same
country who would be benefited from this bill has been known to abuse the
visa and gaming the system.
India and china have already more than 7% of the quota by the
spill over rule.
This bill does not solve the real issue, we need more quota not shifting
problem from left pocket to right pocket.
Tue at 11:55am VirginiaFerguson in Florida's 24th District
While it is not a perfect solution, the per country limit ensures that no
one country monopolizes the employment based immigration system. If this cap
is removed, two countries (namely India and China) will essentially
monopolise the employment based immigration system to the detriment of over
180 other countries.
Mon at 11:13pm PaulvanBrenk in Washington's 7th District
The per country limit ensures that no one country monopolizes the employment
based immigration system. If we remove this cap, certain countries that are
known to have abused the employment based immigration system via body shops
, sweat shops and employee exploitation, will prevent the genuine talented
individuals from other countries to immigrate.
The argument, often used in favor of this bill, is that American businesses
will be able to hire more high skilled immigrants. That is a fallacy, since
this bill doesn't increase the total number of employment based visas
available each year. So, not only that American companies will not be able
to hire any more skilled immigrants than they are hiring now, but they will
be strictly limited of hiring Indian and Chinese nationals for years to come
- no other country would be able to compete with the overwhelming inflow of
green card applicants from those countries - India in particular. The
process would not create diversity in the immigrant labor force and will be
dominated by Indian citizens.
Thu at 1:52pm nicholas80 in Florida's 22nd District
I oppose H.R. 3012: Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act because...While
it is not a perfect solution, the per-country limit ensures that no one
country monopolizes the employment based immigration system. If this cap is
removed, two countries (India and China) will monopolize the employment
based immigration system to the detriment of over 180 other countries. This
7% per country limit is already ignored through a spill over rule, which
benefits India and China greatly. At this point it is safe to assume that in
excess of over 50% of all EB green cards are going to India.
The quota acts as a safeguard to ensure some measure of distribution
throughout applicants from other countries. Changes to this system do not
solve the underlying issues with the employment based system, which is pure
supply and demand issue.
The motto of the United States is E Pluribus Unum, and a situation where two
countries monopolize greater than 90% of the visas would not be a true
representation of this statement.
The immigration system has many flaws, but this bill would only exacerbate
these flaws. I strongly oppose this bill since this bill and urge you to do
the same where possible
October 3 illusions77 in New Jersey's 5th District
This will kill the diversity that immigration needs. The only countries that
this will benefit will be India and China. The rest of the EB3 Rest of the
world applicants will now have to wait an additional 3~4 years just so that
India and China can move ahead. This is not fair and does not fix the issue
at hand. I propose that congress propose recapturing the lost visa's that
were due but not given due to various administrative purposes. Please do not
pass this bill, and help solve the immigration problem rather than adding a
band aide to it.
Thanks!
September 30 akwasi in New Jersey's 10th District
The bill will eliminate the diversity in the employment base category and
with this bill only 2 countries(India and China) will consume the yearly
allocated visa for all employment visas for about 3 to 5 years before any
other country will have a chance to get a visa. Indians and Chinese are
trying to push this bill for their benefit by creating a 10year backlog for
the Rest Of the World (ROW), so please oppose this bill in order to help
with the permanent green card for employers seeking permanent stay
September 30 Sara1 in Florida's 20th District
This bill is proposed to remove the per country cap that has been put in
place to ensure diversity in the employment base permanent stay in the US
1)Currently if the bill is passed, it will mean that only applicants from
India and China will use all the 28%(about 40,000 visas) awarded to EB3
category of the 140,000/year(all Employment Base visas) for concurrent of 3-
5years before anyone from ROW(Rest Of the World). This means Only India and
China will have to use (40,000visas x 5 continuous years = 200,000visas)
before anyone else in the Rest of the World (ROW)category can get even 1visa
. This clearly shows the huge influx of applicants from those 2 countries(
India and China).
2. Without the current country cap, there will be no diversity in the
employment base for qualified employees from different countries.
3. If this bill pass, it will mean that the already 6year backlogged EB3
category for the ROW members which is currently in 2005 will extend the
backlog to 10+ years for everyone in the ROW(Rest of the World)
September 29 HonestMan in Pennsylvania's 3rd District
I oppose H.R. 3012 ("To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based")
because the per country limit ensures that no one country monopolizes the
employment based immigration system. If we remove this cap, certain country
that are known to have abused the employment based immigration system via
body shops, sweat shops and employee exploitation, will prevent the genuine
talented individuals from other countries to immigrate. There is no cap on
student visa and look at the recent news of how one country is abusing
student visa program in California, Virginia and other places.
The argument, often used in favor of this bill is that Indian nationals are
waiting while other small countries cannot reach their cap of 7%. But the
fact is when other countries are not reaching their cap, the remaining visa
goes to india. You can review the number of visas Indian nationals received
in each of the last several years and you will see India is receiving 30% -
40% of available visas, which is a lot more than the cap of 7%.
I strongly oppose this bill since this bill is very parochial in its scope
and only benefits one country.
September 29 peterterra in Connecticut's 4th District
It would stop diversity in visa distribution. India and China already get
the majority of it. This bill would cause unfairness in the immigration
system.
September 29 goodlooker123 in Colorado's 1st District
The county cap has a purpose. It was created to maintain diversity otherwise
a specific group will flood the legal immigration system.
If you look at the history, legal immigration system has been abused so
badly from people from India left and right.
Just a few years ago, H1B would fill up just on the first week of April and
more than half of the people were Indians. It stopped dramatically as soon
as USCIS fielded its people to see what was going on. Most of these H1Bs
were coming from Indian consultants and body shops (name commonly used by
Indians for local consultants).
There were two incidents recently where two private universities owned by
Indian Nationals were bringing people from India on student visas.
If you look on the internet, you will be surprised to see how the Indian
nationals are abusing this immigration system in so many different ways.
Even if half of these people are restrained from committing these frauds,
half of the problem will be resolved.
It is for the reasons above and many others, that country cap should be in
place otherwise there will be chaos in legal immigrations system.
September 28 IrishSF in California's 8th District
I am writing as your constituent in the 8th Congressional district of
California. I wish to state my opposition to H.R.3012 - To amend the
Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the per-country numerical
limitation for employment-based immigrants.
While it is not a perfect solution, the per country limit ensures that no
one country monopolizes the employment based immigration system. If this cap
is removed, two countries (namely India and China) will essentially
monopolise the employment based immigration system to the detriment of over
180 other countries. This quota is already ignored through a spill over rule
which benefits Indina and China greatly. However, the quota acts as a
safeguard to ensure some measure of distribution throughout the the other
applicant countries.
The motto of the United States is E Pluribus Unum, and a situation where two
countries monopolize greater than 90% of the visas would not be a true
representation of this statement, which has come to have greater meaning
than the Founding Fathers intended.
The immigration system has many flaws, but this bill would ecaserbate these
flaws. I urge you to oppose this bill
September 28 teabaggranny in Missouri's 7th District
I oppose H.R. 3012 ("To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based")
because...i don't want the limits raised for familys.we need to reform it
but those coming into this country should have something to offer .close our
borders now
September 27 jr8rdt in Missouri's 1st District
I oppose H.R. 3012 ("To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based")
because the per country limit ensures that no one country monopolizes the
employment based immigration system. If we remove this cap, certain country
that are known to have abused the employment based immigration system via
body shops, sweat shops and employee exploitation, will prevent the genuine
talented individuals from other countries to immigrate. The biggest lie
about this bill is , unlike the proponent of the bill says, there is a 6
years waiting period for EB3 visa category. So the argument that only the
Indians are waiting for quota for years is a lie and not true. The fact the
matter is everybody is waiting in line. The bill keeps saying that there is
no winner or loser if it passes. Clearly this is another lie, the losers are
the non Indian /Chinese immigrants who are waiting patiently in line . We
have per country quota laws for a reason , simply by eliminating one
equation but ignoring to consider the other equation is just simply not fair
. By removing the per country quota without increasing the visa numbers is
a grand mistake.
September 27 gchope2k6 in Virginia's 11th District
I am writing as your constituent in the 11th Congressional district of
Virginia.
The per country limit ensures that no one country monopolizes the employment
based immigration system. If we remove this cap, certain countries that are
known to have abused the employment based immigration system via body shops
, sweat shops and employee exploitation, will prevent the genuine talented
individuals from other countries to immigrate.
The argument, often used in favor of this bill, is that American businesses
will be able to hire more high skilled immigrants. That is a fallacy, since
this bill doesn't increase the total number of employment based visas
available each year. So, not only that American companies will not be able
to hire any more skilled immigrants than they are hiring now, but they will
be strictly limited of hiring Indian and Chinese nationals for years to come
- no other country would be able to compete with the overwhelming inflow of
green card applicants from those countries - India in particular. The
process would not create diversity in the immigrant labor force and will be
dominated by Indian citizens.
September 27 gchope2k6 in Virginia's 11th District
I am writing as your constituent in the 11th Congressional district of
Virginia.
The per country limit ensures that no one country monopolizes the employment
based immigration system. If we remove this cap, certain countries that are
known to have abused the employment based immigration system via body shops
, sweat shops and employee exploitation, will prevent the genuine talented
individuals from other countries to immigrate.
The argument, often used in favor of this bill, is that American businesses
will be able to hire more high skilled immigrants. That is a fallacy, since
this bill doesn't increase the total number of employment based visas
available each year. So, not only that American companies will not be able
to hire any more skilled immigrants than they are hiring now, but they will
be strictly limited of hiring Indian and Chinese nationals for years to come
- no other country would be able to compete with the overwhelming inflow of
green card applicants from those countries - India in particular. The
process would not create diversity in the immigrant labor force and will be
dominated by Indian citizens.
September 26 tvoya in Maryland's 8th District
I oppose H.R. 3012 ("To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based")
because...the limitation on per country capita was created for a reason and
eliminate it would mean the green cards only for citizens of China and India
- no other country would be able to compete with overwhelming inflow of
green card applicants from those countries - India in particular. The
process would not create diversity in immigrant labor force and will
dominate by India's citizens. I strongly oppose H.R. 3012 bill !
Sincerely,
MD resident
