Chris
@brogrammer0101
Followers
22
Following
28
Media
5
Statuses
152
Joined November 2011
how well their voting record matched the voices of their constituents. That way they can primary them if they need to.
0
0
0
by physical postcards mailed to their address with a given code for authorization. A later feature might be: monitoring upcoming bills and asking constituents to give their opinions. Then at the end of a congress person's term, their constituents (and everyone else) will see.
1
0
0
I should make an "instant town hall" app. Something Congress members can have on their phones, and at anytime of day they can ask "what do you guys think of y issue?" and give alerts to only their constituents to participate in a poll / discussion. Their constituents verified.
1
0
1
You all hear about this one?.
0
0
0
. With the number of layoffs in tech especially, it astounds me that H1B is even still allowed right now. Please do something about this issue. It is important to me and many other US citizens in tech.
0
0
0
. to all US citizens and for all jobs not on DOL schedule A. Not just the jobs that pay under $60k. USCIS should also require that US employers aren't allowed more than 50% non-citizen employees. Put that in the EO and have the government try to "justify why it shouldn't be". .
1
0
0
. this distinction or have it ruled unconstitutional by the supreme Court (because we all know Congress isn't going to do anything). One way to quickly get this in front of the supreme Court would be for Trump to issue an EO to direct USCIS to require displacement protection. .
1
0
0
. a rational basis, and is quite literally arbitrary and capricious. It would make sense that this should be considered unconstitutional, and the displacement protection should apply to all citizens, not just the ones making under $60k. We need to make the government justify. .
1
0
0
. to the H1b employees and leaves the lesser paying jobs to US citizens. At least for employers with more than 15% H1B employees. In my opinion, this law the way it is structured violates the principle of "equal protection" as it creates two classes of citizens without. .
1
0
0
. employer doesn't need to recruit or consider a US citizen before offering the position to an H1B candidate. This is unfair treatment, as it allows employers to favor H1B employees at the expense of displacing US citizens. Or more characteristically: it gives the good jobs. .
1
0
0
We could launch a lawsuit.
@amandalouise416 .20 CFR 655.739(j) says that for jobs paying less than $60k an H1B dependent employer must offer the job to a qualified US worker before offering it to an H1B worker. However, for jobs paying over $60k the employer doesn't have to recruit, interview, or offer. .
1
0
2
It defines STEM fields broadly, covering areas like computer science, engineering, and agriculture. It allows students on F-1 visas to seek permanent residency without losing their student status, known as dual intent.
0
0
0
protections. This violates the equal protection clause of the US constitution. It is plain as day, and yet no lawsuit has ever been filed for it. Why would Congress protect the jobs of one class of citizens but not others?.
0
0
2
class for jobs paying more than $60k or requiring advanced degrees. The first class is awarded protection from displacement by H1B workers and codifies that they must be offered the job if qualified before an H1B worker. The second class is not awarded any displacement.
1
0
1
. job to a US worker before offering it to a H1B worker. See 20 CFR 655.737(a) This effectively means that the INA is unconstitutional as it is creating two classes of US citizens and is treating them differently (the class for <$60k paying jobs and the.
1
0
1
RT @SteveKnowsVR: Where can you guys can Save Money on your VR Games, Headsets & Accessories?. We have a Quest 3S G….
gleam.io
To Celebrate the Launch of the Store where I hope to create a one stop shop where you can get discounts on all your games, accessories, headsets and more! A chance to win a Quest 3S!
0
475
0
of cause of 50 people or greater or more than 5% of an employer's US work force within a year, whichever is less". That way this loophole is closed. They shouldn't be able to misclassify layoffs as performance based terminations.
0
0
0