S.386法案暂以失败告终,但正反双方的嘴仗还没结束

September 19, 2019

 

今天下午1时许,牵动着众多人心的S.386即《2019年高技能移民公平法案》,由参议员麦克·李(Mike Lee)提上Unanimous Consent流程,最终因参议员大卫·珀杜(David Perdue)投反对票,而致使法案未能通过。此法案于一周之后或将再次通过Unanimous Consent被表决。

 

大卫·珀杜反驳观点

 

今天,佐治亚州的参议员大卫·珀杜反对该法案时,主要观点陈述如下:

  • 该法案中尚有部分措辞不够明确;

  • 该法案对佐治亚州特定行业或存在极大的不确定性影响;

  • 他将与麦克·李讨论修改该法案,以便达成共识。

支持方 v.s. 反对方

 

目前,有关此法案的争议还未休止,各个利益相关群体仍旧在Twitter等社交平台踊跃发声,希望以此推进参议院达成对自方阵营有利的决定。

 

印度籍职业绿卡申请人无疑是此法案的最主要拥护群体。因为该法案的通过,意味着未来十年左右的职业绿卡名额,将被用来解决现有排期体系中的遗留问题,即印度籍申请人的超长排期。有报告称,印度申请人的现有排期可能需150年之久才能完成,但有人指出此计算结果并不可靠,其错误地预测了每年印度申请人可获得的职业移民绿卡数额。

 

#s386 is not about to give fairness, but privilege to ONE Country. Spending 10 years on processing backlogs for only one country of ppl does not sound FAIR to ppl from all other countries. NO #s386

 

但也正如上述推文所表达的观点:用10年的时间来解决一个国家申请人所面临的问题,对所有其他国家而言则毫无公平可言。

 

Indians have been taking 75% of H1bs thanks to biased ccompanies and 20% of GCs while other nationals take 7% or less. It's not fair. #s386 says fairness means giving 100% of GCs to Indians. #Nos386

 

更有人指出,印度申请人所面临的超长排期问题,并非完全因职业绿卡国别限额所致,究其根本是印度申请人在H-1B签证的申请中就占有了较大的配额。数据显示,2017年在美留学生中,印度留学生所占比例仅为18%,但H-1B签证申请人数却高达全部申请的76%。这直接导致印度籍H-1B签证持有人明显高于他国,因而有更多人最终可申请进入职业绿卡排期系统。

 

正因如此,亚马逊、微软等科技大公司,及其他科技外包公司也成为了本法案的有力支持阵营。这些公司依赖于大量的外籍高技术员工,正如上图所示,在他们聘用的持H-1B工作签证的雇员中,印度籍员工必占据其中绝大多数。因此,这些公司对此“高技能移民公平法案”纷纷表示支持,以化解印度软件工程师等高科技员工的移民身份问题。

 

相比一些国家遵循的“择优”移民筛选体系,“先到先得”原则始终无法从根本上解决美国现有移民体系的问题。有言论甚至指出“先到先得”的原则无异于“玩笑”。另外也有反对者指出,这份影响数百万人的法案,从未经过公开听证会是不可被接受的。

 

我们在之前的文章中已经为大家介绍了该法案的详细内容,结合今日的各家言论,相信大家心中对法案已经有了明确的认识和想法。我所将持续关注此法案进展,及时为大家提供专业解读。如果您有任何移民相关疑问,也可点击此处与我们预约免费咨询。

All rights reserved. All content of this blog is the property and copyright of Jia Law Group and may not be reproduced in any format without prior express permission.

 

Contact marketing@jiaesq.com for more information or to seek permission to reproduce content. This blog is intended for general information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. The reader should consult with knowledgeable legal counsel to determine how applicable laws apply to specific facts and situations. Blog posts are based on the most current information at the time they are written. Since it is possible that the laws or other circumstances may have changed since publication, please call us to discuss any action you may be considering as a result of reading this blog.  

 

By using this blog you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

Evaluate your case
arrow&v
Let us know your interest:
Your language preference:
jialawgroupwebpayment.png

E-Verify® is a registered trademark of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

LOCATIONS

New York Financial District Headquarters

225 Broadway 17th fl

New York, NY 10007

347 - 897 - 6199

Irvine Office

8 Corporate Park, Ste 300

Irvine, CA 92606

949 - 430 - 6329

New York Chinatown Office

7 Chatham Square, Ste 609

New York, NY 10038

646 - 495 - 0654

New York Flushing Office

136-68 Roosevelt Avenue, Ste 902 Flushing, NY 11354

646 - 500 - 8668

SOCIAL

Instagram.png
Linkedin.png
Facebook.png
YouTube.png
social-wechat-circle-512.png
weibo-icon.png

Pursuant to the amendments to the New York Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorney advertising in New York, this website may constitute advertising. Viewers of this website are advised that: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney Advertising © 2020 Jia Law Group P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Icons made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com