We oppose HR392/S281 the “Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act” (hereinafter referred to as “this bill”). It is neither fair, nor is it for the high-skilled, nor is it only for employment-based green cards. This bill completely eliminatescountry caps for all employment-based green cards and more than doublesfamily-based green cards, essentially allowing India, & to a lesser extent, China, to co-op America’s green card system.
This bill is the most radical change to our immigration system in history. It is a sweeping policy change buried in the House DHS appropriations bill (HR6776),which is against house rules. The process through which the activities of government are chosen should be distinct from the process through which those activities are funded.
Moreover, this bill has not had any hearing or impact study assessing the effects on American workers, American businesses, non-Indian immigration, or our immigration system.
This bill seeks the complete removal of the 7% country caps on employment-based green card distribution, put in place to ensure diversity in immigration. In practice, however, India has been receiving roughly 18% of the US allotment of green cards because they’ve recaptured unused green cards from countries that have not been able to secure H1B visas for their country’s workers.
Why would we do this to a company that hates Americans and Texans and our traditions?
Infosys will receive a more than $3 million grant from the Texas Enterprise Fund as part of the IT company’s expansion in the state.
The Bengaluru-headquartered IT services company had said it would create 500 jobs in Richardson, Texas. Texas Governor Greg Abbott said Infosys’ expansion in Texas would bring a $12.3 million capital investment in the region.
To see what I mean, read the following and say Merry Christmas Infosys.
Infosys management routinely disparaged Americans, including Mrs. Awasthi, as not having “family values,” and stated that layoffs in America are good because the jobs will be outsourced.
Infosys management ridiculed Mrs. Awasthi for celebrating the American holiday of Thanksgiving, telling her that she should not celebrate Thanksgiving because she is Indian, and that therefore she must work on Thanksgiving Day.
Infosys management ridiculed Mrs. Awasthiâ€™s children for celebrating Thanksgiving, and called them “ABCD” short for “American-Born Confused Desi,” and “IBCD” short for “Indian-Born Confused Desi,” insulting terms used to criticize people of Indian ancestry who are Americanized.
Infosys management ridiculed Mrs. Awasthi for celebrating Christmas, saying that “we” do not celebrate Christmas, and that she should not celebrate Christmas. Infosys management repeatedly discussed the quality of Mrs. Awasthi’s work by explicitly commenting on their expectations for “a woman your age.”
Think these things are no longer happening?
Here is a sample of a case that is now being processed against Tata
This specific flow of the $48 million goes to the employers of alumni of Northwestern Polytechnic University, of Fremont, Calif., which was in danger of losing accreditation until U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos made accreditation easier for marginal universities.
NPU, meanwhile, manages year after year to operate at an almost unbelievable profit ratio of 71 percent. For every $1 it received in tuition (there are no reported donations to the place) 71 cents goes into the university’s fast-expanding brokerage account. These remarkable financial returns are reported routinely to the IRS on NPU’s form 990, a sort of 1040 for nonprofits.
NPU is regarded, for some reason, by IRS as a charitable enterprise. It is run by an American Chinese family named Hsieh and most of its students (or maybe “students”) are from India. A few years ago it was accredited by a marginal accreditation agency, Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS), in a stage-managed manner that drew a long, devastating article by BuzzFeed.
The headline for that story: “Inside the School that Abolished the F and Raked in Cash”
None of these derogatory facts about the place has made any impact on NPU’s continuing ability to cause the admission of thousands of lightly qualified foreign students a year. Homeland Security’s ability to wear blinders on the visa mill issue persists year after year.
Despite the tiny percentage of tuition actually spent on education at NPU, it is the second largest producer of Optional Practical Training alumni in the entire nation, following only the massive New York University, according to new government statistics.
The top five schools, in terms of the alumni in these subsidized jobs are: NYU, 6,199; NPU, 6,060; University of Southern California, 5,844; Columbia University, 5,590; and Northeastern University, 4,359. The four other than NPU are very large institutions with extensive foreign and domestic student populations and are in the mainstream of American higher education.
I wrote above “the government has revealed how much …” That revelation is not to be regarded as a bit of transparency. The raw data – with no dollar figures attached – was pried out of some Homeland Security statistics on the Optional Practical Training program, which never mentions the subsidies, the rewards to employers for hiring foreign, rather than resident (citizen or green card), college grads.
We then applied the known OPT subsidy formula (no payroll taxes for either these alumni or their employers for one to three years) to an assumption of $50,000 a year salaries for the grads of NPU to come up with the $48,000,000. (The combined payroll taxes for employers and workers amounts to about 15.90 percent of payroll.)
So: 6,060 x $50,000 x 15.9% = $48,177,000 a year, for NPU grads alone.
The DHS agency in charge, the sleepy Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), describes the population as “Students with OPT Authorization”, although nearly all of them are alumni, not students.
In other words, Clinton apparently has no concerns that a massive influx of migrants – or refugees, or so-called asylum-seekers, or even economically motivated immigrants – could drive down wages for the working class or lower income cohorts of a country’s native-born population, or wind up admitting criminals and terrorists from violence-ridden regions, or swamp a country with newcomers either ignorant or actively contemptuous of its cultural values (e.g., its treatment of women).
She’s simply advocating that establishment politicians do the proverbial – but never well defined “something” – to keep on the fringes counterparts who are mindful of the above, and completely legitimate, concerns. In fact, Clinton’s continuing contempt for such leaders, and their followings, is made clear by her contention that populist voters are defined by
“a psychological as much as political yearning to be told what to do, and where to go, and how to live and have their press basically stifled and so be given one version of reality.
“The whole American system was designed so that you would eliminate the threat from a strong, authoritarian king or other leader and maybe people are just tired of it. They don’t want that much responsibility and freedom. They want to be told what to do and where to go and how to live … and only given one version of reality.”
In other words, “deplorables,” anyone?