Because he is lying when he said the wait time is only 8-10 years. It is actually more than 100 years.
But, no immigration attorney will ever say that truth to the H1B visa holders from India. I had asked this exact same question to my company attorney 10 years ago and the answer was exact same, wait for 5-10 years.
There are around ~70k software engineer coming to US from India, and everyone of them is told the same lie by their attorneys.
While most of these folks from India wait for their green card for rest of their life, attorneys make a fortune renewing their H1B every year.
> Their politicians always like to pat themselves on the back and are trying to present Canadian situation as better than the US all the time.
Lol. This reminds me of their highly publicized welcoming of undocumented immigrants after Trump was elected. But, once that count crossed thousand, they just shut their border.
Here is the detailed comment by "Immigration Voice" on why the rule is bad for everyone except special interest:
"...The new immigrant entrepreneur parole program will create a yet another class of immigrants, albeit minority partners and working resources in the start-up entity, who will be beholden and entirely dependent on the hand-picked venture capital firms to maintain their status in United States in the parole period and beyond as immigrant entrepreneur will have no clear pathway to permanent residency. The proposed rule does not present a clear and fair system in which immigrants will have the same rights as U.S. workers or U.S. entrepreneurs in the marketplace. Therefore, the immigrant entrepreneur will have no leverage to negotiate the terms of the contract and relationship with and they will be susceptible to exploitation in a novel way as proposed in this regulation. Even if a path to U.S. permanent residency is proposed, it will in all likelihood, be at the expense of the current backlog of employment based immigrants in the permanent residency process.
In essence, the new immigrant would pay (in the form of hefty investment in the firm) for his or her travels to the United States only to remain in bondage relationship to the hand-picked VC firm. If this is not a definition of indentured servitude, then what is? Worse yet, the paroled immigrant has no defined wage requirement as a worker in the firm and has very lenient “income threshold” (400 percent of Federal Poverty Level for family size - irrespective of the prevailing wages of the entrepreneur’s job functions) as outlined in the proposed rule. It is well known that such system only increases the demand for new immigrants because of their lower leverage and bargaining power in such relationships, while the American workers and entrepreneurs are discriminated against in the talent ecosystem.
In justifying the rule, DHS presents “significant public benefit” such as entrepreneurship and job creation by immigrant founders. This reference to various studies is grossly misleading in that DHS uses contributions of immigrant founders without crediting the fact that most of these immigrant founders had gained sufficient certainty in their immigration process by obtaining a Green Card prior to making a significant investment in the companies they founded.
The H-1B and L-1B programs were also created under the pretext of “job creation and innovation in the United States” and 25 years after the inception of these programs, the American high-skilled workforce consists of an estimated 1.5 million high-skilled law-abiding immigrants who are captive to their employers and cannot start their businesses and create jobs. This is clearly detrimental to the prospects of our fellow American workers who compete against the captive workforce of skilled immigrants who are favored by bad employers for their lack of job mobility.
For the purpose of bringing in more immigrants from outside, DHS uses the disguise of “significant public benefit” only to pile up fresh immigrants in the Green Card backlogs in which the new immigrants have fewer rights (as will clearly be the case with the proposed class of Entrepreneur parolees). It is ironic that DHS did not use the same “significant public benefit” arguments for providing rights such as job mobility and ability to start their own companies by high skilled immigrants, who already have approved immigrant petitions (I-140), understand the business environment in US, have great ideas (and hold patents in many cases) and have investments to start their businesses. But somehow DHS and Administration is very selective in applying the same “significant public benefit” argument for NOT letting people with approved immigrant petitions to start their companies. This clearly raises doubts as to whether any economic argument by the DHS in the rule making process is trustworthy. The proposed regulation ensures that there will be absolutely zero “significant public benefit”. Instead, the proposed regulation is only designed for “significant benefit of hand-picked Venture Capitalists”...."
That is the sense I got from the Legal Immigrant Advocacy groups who directly worked with DC Immigration Officials.
There should be good companies and attorneys (for e.g., Murthy, etc.) probably they are out numbered?
P.S: I did provide the twitter handle of fwd.us for anyone not convinced to verify
They were allowed to move out of H1B visa to EAD status (non-visa legal status). The same legal status DACA recipients got from Obama administration. So, technically nothing was changed to the H1B rule.
I did a quick google search but could not find any reference. Media barely covers any of our issues (no NYT no WashingPost, no noone). But, I personally know more than few of family friends were benefited.
Bush Administration made the "priority date current" for a short window; this allowed legal immigrants waiting in the line for Permanent Residency to file and obtain 485-EAD.
I have no idea. If Republican's tries to make the system better with the interest of American workers as priority, then there is a chance, it could help legal immigrants like me too.
With the current administration, their priority was totally upside down.
>The part that says "the outgoing administration" is demonstrably false.
That is not correct. The G. W. Bush administration, just before leaving the office, gave all the legal immigrants "Job Mobility" (i.e., their H1B visa was not anymore tied to the employer). It is minor and easy step President could take under his executive power.
I'm an H1-B visa holder living and working in USA for past 10+ years. I cannot express how much happier I'm to see the Tech industry being on the wrong side of the presidential election. The out going administration had sold us (and indirectly hurting American workers) with the "Indentured servitude rules" to benefit the Tech companies and immigration attorneys.
Here is an example, where every year, tens of thousands of legal immigrant kids getting deported because legal immigrants followed all the laws. Instead if we had not, and our kids were in illegal status, then Obama administration's DACA would have saved our kids.
[Note: there are tons of other examples I can provide, where it is more beneficial to claim to be an illegal vs trying to be legal status]
P.S. the fwd.us, a tech industry backed non-profit organization would never speak about our issues; but would bend over backward to prevent illegals from deported (check their twitter handle "FWD_us" if you don't believe). Btw- I have nothing against illegal immigrants; but it hurts to be disadvantaged after following every impossible immigration rules for past 10+ years.
>On one hand, you claim that it takes a year for the employer to get your GC going. And now to withdraw it (which will include the same filing fee + lawyer fees - time spent= thousands of dollars) it takes them less than a month (or few months) to budget this?
Why do you say withdrawal need to be done in a month? To pack-up an H1-B visa holder, withdrawal only has to be done within the 2.5 years.
Also, withdrawing I-140 is more about sending a message to the other H1-B employees to not leave. Companies are glad to cough up few hundred bucks to send that message.