http://grassley.senate.gov/...
For Immediate Release
June 26th, 2007
GRASSLEY, DURBIN RELEASE NEW INFORMATION ON L VISAS
WASHINGTON – The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services responded to Senators Grassley and Durbin today and provided information that shows many foreign outsourcing firms that send American jobs overseas are using L visas in large numbers.
For Immediate Release
June 26th, 2007
GRASSLEY, DURBIN RELEASE NEW INFORMATION ON L VISAS
WASHINGTON – The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services responded to Senators Grassley and Durbin today and provided information that shows many foreign outsourcing firms that send American jobs overseas are using L visas in large numbers.
The information provided today showed that many of the same companies identified as using the most H-1B visas were the same companies that used the most L visas. Under current law, employers can use the L visa program to evade restrictions on the H-1B program because it does not include protections for American workers. This demonstrates the need for additional checks on the L visa program.
"This information certainly makes one wonder if companies are using the L visa to circumvent the worker protections required under the H-1B program. I’d like to know how many American workers these companies hire compared to the number of foreign workers they bring in," Grassley said. "American workers deserve the best chance at jobs in this country, and this data makes one question if they are too often overlooked."
Grassley and Durbin have voted for every increase in foreign worker visas and against every protection for American workers. Regardless of their latest investigations and flag waving, they will continue to sell us down the river.
Top 20 H-1B Users with Information about L-Visa Use
Company | H-1B Visas FY 2006 | L-Visas 2005 | L-Visas 2006 |
INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES | 4908 | 235 | 294 |
WIPRO LIMITED | 4002 | 1187 | 839 |
MICROSOFT CORPORATION | 3117 | 133 | 168 |
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES | 3046 | 5517 | 4887 |
SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD | 2880 | 352 | 950 |
COGNIZANT TECH SOLUTIONS | 2226 | 1888 | 3520 |
PATNI COMPUTER SYSTEMS INC | 1391 | 221 | 440 |
DELOITTE & TOUCHE | 1555 | 184 | 512 |
IBM CORPORATION | 1130 | 614 | 1237 |
ORACLE USA INC | 1022 | 148 | 176 |
LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD | 947 | 48 | 143 |
HCL AMERICA INC | 910 | 244 | 511 |
HCL AMERICA INC | 910 | 244 | 511 |
CISCO SYSTEMS INC | 828 | 83 | 65 |
INTEL CORP | 828 | 314 | 394 |
I-FLEX SOLUTIONS INC | 817 | 84 | 59 |
ERNST & YOUNG LLP | 774 | 249 | 139 |
TECH MAHINDRA AMERICAS INC | 770 | 0 | 11 |
MOTOROLA INC | 760 | 94 | 89 |
MPHASIS CORPORATION | 751 | 53 | 58 |
LANCESOFT INC | 645 | 0 | 0 |
Regarding Patni, here is more "anecdotal" evidence of American wage suppression by way of Congress:
http://www.computerworld.com/...
Offshore firm to pay $2.4M to settle H-1B wage case
Patrick Thibodeau
June 07, 2007 (Computerworld) One of the largest users of H-1B visas, India-based Patni Computer Systems Inc., is paying $2.4 million in back wages to 607 of its H-1B employees as part of an agreement announced today by the U.S. Department of Labor.
Labor officials said that Patni failed to pay the prevailing wages due the employees between January 2004 and December 2005. The law requires H-1B employers to pay wages similar to what a U.S. worker would receive for the same kind of work.
Patni spokesman Gene Carozza said the back wage problem was "due to an accounting error that has since been rectified."
The H-1B workers at Patni were "rectified" – they recovered past wages – insufficient to cover their legal fees and court costs. The American citizens they replaced were "rectified" in a different way. They took it up the rectum.
Other offshore outsourcers pay at the level of Indian wages, then seize IRS tax refund checks from their indentured foreign employees. Complaints from aliens and impacted American citizens are ignored by US courts. None of the courts have jurisdiction or sufficient budget (or inclination) to investigate. Complaints by American citizens are made a laughing stock in federal courts.
http://www.fedcir.gov/... (.pdf)
Here is the log of another American fighting for civil rights.
http://www.faceintel.com/
We used to have laws against the slave trade.
Here are letters sent by Senator Grassley and Rep. Lamar Smith to immigration attorneys who coach American corporations on how to avoid citizen job applicants in favor of foreign workers. Big surprise to these Congressmen. Smith was the author in 1998 of the "loopholes" that cut our throats.
Here is an interesting letter sent to US DOL Chairman Chao (who rubber stamps 99% of those Labor Condition Applications which declare that no Americans are available for jobs going to foreign workers). Sure would like to read her answers to this. Her latest comments on the American worker – "American employees must be punctual, dress appropriately and have good personal hygiene," says Chao. "They need anger-management and conflict-resolution skills, and they have to be able to accept direction. Too many young people bristle when a supervisor asks them to do something." Take another bath, Techie!
June 21, 2007
The Honorable Elaine Chao
Secretary
Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20210
Dear Secretary Chao:
Attached, please find a letter that we sent to Cohen & Grigsby about a seminar conducted by their law firm in May of this year. The firm videotaped the Seventh Annual Immigration Law Update Seminar, exposing the blatant disregard for American workers and deliberate attempt to bring in cheaper foreign workers through the H-1B program.
As outlined in our letter, we are concerned that companies are abusing the H-1B program. The video explicitly shows how attorneys are aiding companies in this effort. We seek your assistance in this particular case by reviewing the video and investigating the law firm’s unethical procedures and advice to clients.
In addition, we are concerned about the level of fraud monitoring of the H-1B visa program by your Department. Given that the immigration bill before the Senate includes a provision to allow your Department to divert special fraud monitoring funds to other operations, we would like to know how many dollars have been used specifically for H-1B fraud efforts. Specifically, we would like to know:
$ Annually, what is the total amount of funds deposited into the Fraud Fee account under INA Section 286(v)? Of this amount, what amount is provided to the Department of Homeland Security under 286(v)(2)(C)?
$ How have the funds provided pursuant to 286(v)(2)(C) been used in FY2005, FY2006, and thus far in FY2007? How many funds are not expended in a given year?
$ How does the Department plan to spend the remaining dollars left in FY2007?
$ How many complaints have been lodged to the Department of Labor regarding the H-1B visa program? Of these, how many investigations have been opened by the Department in the last year? How many have been closed and why have they been closed?
Please contact XXXXXXX with Senator Grassley=s staff or XXXXXXX with Congressman Smith if you have any questions regarding this matter. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley Lamar Smith
United States Senator U.S. House of Representatives
Why letters, Congressmen? These companies are in gross violation of L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2004. They have also been in violation of the spirit of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 for over a decade which protects American jobs and wages. At least 1 company – Patni – has been proven guilty of underpayment of H-1B visa workers. None of the rest have been investigated.
Review of Vulnerabilities and Potential Abuses of the L-1 Visa Program
DHS
OIG-06-22
http://www.dhs.gov/...
Though the L-1 visa program is not specifically tailored for the computer or
information technology (IT) industries, the positions L-1 applicants are filling are
most often related to computers and IT. From 1999 to 2004, nine of the ten firms
that petitioned for the most L-1 workers were computer and IT related
outsourcing service firms that specialize in labor from India.16 And although the
L-1 visa program was not intended to benefit any one country, almost 50 percent
of the L-1B (specialized knowledge) petitions submitted in FY 2005 named
beneficiaries who were born in India.
16 These firms were Tata Consultancy, Cognizant Technology Solutions, Wipro Technologies,
Hewlett Packard, I-Flex Solutions, IBM Global Services, Information Systems Technology,
Syntel Incorporated, and Satyam Computer Services. The exception was Honda.
These visas are not going to the "best and brightest", as tech companies proclaim. 85% of the non-immigrants are paid level-one salaries – entry level. They are then assimilated into the client company project workflow and trained by American citizens whom they eventually replace.
The L-1 program is vulnerable in several respects. First, the program allows for
the transfer of managers and executives, but adjudicators often find it difficult to
be confident that a firm truly intends using an imported worker in such a capacity.
Second, the program allows for the transfer of workers with "specialized
knowledge," but the term is so broadly defined that adjudicators believe they have
little choice but to approve almost all petitions. Third, the transfer of L-1 workers
requires that the petitioning firm is doing business abroad, but adjudicators in the
United States have little ability to evaluate the substantiality of the foreign
operation. Fourth, the program encompasses petitioners who do not yet have, but
are merely are in the process of establishing, their first U.S. office, and it also
permits petitioners to transfer themselves to the United States. These two
provisions, separately and in combination, represent "windows of opportunity" for
some of the abuse that appears to be occurring.
Employment-based visas – and there are both nonimmigrant and immigrant visa
classes that are employment-based – are perceived as more susceptible to fraud
because they are more difficult or impossible to verify. An adjudicator cannot be
certain that a beneficiary will work as a personnel manager if approved, or as just
another salesperson. No document can be requested that will prove the future
activities of the beneficiary. A beneficiary's entitlement to the classification is
based on, among other factors, their future conduct. Additionally, adjudicators told
us that employment-based petitions were usually professionally prepared by
experienced attorneys, and were either too vague, or conversely too technical, for
the adjudicator to make appropriate decisions. The adjudicators we interviewed felt
unanimously that three vulnerabilities were the most significant they face, and these
made their job extremely difficult with regard to adjudicating L-1 petitions:
• managerial status is difficult to verify,
• the definition of specialized knowledge is very broad, and
• foreign companies may be illegitimate.
DOS consular officers expressed identical concerns in their responses to our survey
questions.
DOS foreign service officers expressed parallel concerns when the beneficiaries
apply for visas. One very large embassy reported, "L-1 applicants claim they are
being sent to open new offices or subsidiaries in the United States. It is
impossible to verify these claims as the new company need only show to DHS
that it has a leased business space and possesses company registration. When we
subsequently investigate "existing" U.S. entities, we often find that the U.S. office
never actually existed in the true sense, or that it is no longer doing business."
L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2004, signed into law December 8, 2004.36
SEC. 412. NONIMMIGRANT L-1 VISA CATEGORY.
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 214(c)(2) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(2)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
(F) An alien who will serve in a capacity involving
specialized knowledge with respect to an employer for
purposes of section 101(a)(15)(L) and will be stationed
primarily at the worksite of an employer other than the
petitioning employer or its affiliate, subsidiary, or parent
shall not be eligible for classification under section
101(a)(15)(L) if—
(i) the alien will be controlled and supervised principally by
such unaffiliated employer; or
(ii) the placement of the alien at the worksite of the
unaffiliated employer is essentially an arrangement to
provide labor for hire for the unaffiliated employer, rather
than a placement in connection with the provision of a
product or service for which specialized knowledge
specific to the petitioning employer is necessary.
36 See INA § 214(c)(2)(F), 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(F), as added by Pub. L. No. 108-649, Sec 412(a).