查看: 1538|回复: 10

[OPT] OPT Stem Extension那些喷子的评论其实一点用也没有, DHS早就已经回答了那些问题

[复制链接] |试试Instant~ |关注本帖
shenyusong 发表于 2015-11-11 04:27:04 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式


您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?获取更多干活,快来注册

opt的评论不是投票,一个有着良好论据支撑的评论通常比上千个套用的评论更加有效 -- “The comment process is not a vote – one well supported comment is often more influentialthan a thousand form letters. ” ---来自 http://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_For_Submitting_Effective_Comments.pdf

因此大家在评论的时候除了要说明自己支持,说明OPT Extension对美国经济有益之外,更要用详尽的论据来支撑自己的论点 -- 而这一点恰恰是那些喷子们的评论所没有的,他们的评论大多数都是一些套用的语句,很多来自这个网http://www.stopoverreach.com/ ,我去翻了一下评论,不少人更是直接把这个网站上的所有文字全部直接复制到了comment页面,连格式都忘了改。

这些喷子的论点很集中:. 涓浜-涓夊垎-鍦帮紝鐙鍙戝竷
2、公司雇佣OPT学生不用给他们交FICA TAX;
4、OPT学生愿意接受minimum wage(去你大爷的),因此公司不愿意支付更高的薪水来雇佣美国人;
5、整个OPT program并没有经过国会批准,超出了DHS的职权范围,因此完全无效(其实DHS是有这个权力的);

而对于这些喜闻乐见的反对意见,DHS早已在Proposed rule里面一一都进行了解答,内容请见下方。所以说这些看似如潮水一般的负面评论其实大家不需要太担心,因为并不是"effective comments",如果以大众支持/反对的数量来决定是否通过一项法案,那不成了民粹主义?再者,是否继续施行OPT Extension这一新的regulation, 决定权掌握在DHS手里,请看这个网页http://www.regulations.gov/#!home;tab=learn 中“final rule" 的标签中关于public comment的这一句话 ”After the comment period closes, the agency reviews all comments received and conducts a comment analysis. Then agencies decide whether to proceed with the rulemaking process or issue a new or modified proposal. In some cases they withdraw the proposal.”    并不是什么第三方的部门来决定是否通过proposal,而是DHS自己!评论神马的也都是DHS自己来看,来进行分析,现在DHS早就知道会有这些个喷子的反对评论了,这些评论的作用又会有几何呢?
Anyway, 大家一起继续努力评论,但是不要刷数量,那真心一点用都没有,要拿着写GT议论文的精神来comment,写出高质量的comment!

以下内容来自 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=ICEB-2015-0002-0011
G. Safeguarding U.S. Workers Through Measures Consistent With Labor Market Protections
Many commenters to the 2008 IFR agreed with the Department's assessment that the 17-month stem OPT extension would benefit both students and the U.S. economy. Commenters noted that the STEM labor shortage described in the 2008 IFR was well documented and that the United States faced stiff competition from other countries for high-skilled STEM workers. One commenter stated that the IFR provided “small, but helpful steps” towards addressing a critical need forqualified, highly-trained and well-educated STEM workers. Another commenter stated that the rule partially addressed the severe shortage of U.S. workers in science, engineering, mathematics and technology. Commenters highlighted the importance of the STEM OPT extension not only for research universities that seek to attract high-quality international students, but also for employers seeking to fill empty positions. Some commenters characterized the availability of meaningful practical training as a critical aspect of the educational experience. As noted elsewhere in this preamble, many commenters also stated that the impact of the rule was too limited, and requested that eligibility for the extension be expanded to students in additional degree programs, as well as to students employed by employers that do not use E-Verify.
A number of commenters, however, objected to the 17-month STEM OPT extension on the basis of potential negative impacts on U.S. workers in STEM fields. For instance, a commenter stated that demand for technical workers was very weak in engineering occupations and growing modestly in computing and mathematics occupations. The same commenter stated that, especially when combined with H-1B, L-1, and other skilled workers, the number of students taking advantage of the STEM OPT extension would distort the domestic labor market. Some commenters specifically stated that employers would prefer to hire F-1 students on STEM OPT extensions because these students would work for lower wages. Some commenters noted that some U.S. firms had previously advertised STEM positions as being available only to OPT students. Commenters requested that DHS consider written reports, testimony, and other sources describing the state of the U.S. STEM workforce. Commenters also questioned the veracity of studies and reports cited in the preamble to the 2008 IFR, and some questioned whether DHS had interpreted that information correctly in assessing the then-prevailing STEM labor market. Some commenters stated that the STEM OPT extension was contrary to the academic purpose of the F-1 statute. In general, commenters who made these and similar points requested that DHS eliminate the STEM OPT extension and the Cap Gap provision in their entirety.
DHS's initial assessment, consistent with many of the public comments and following consultation with the U.S. Departments of Education and Labor, is that the direct benefit to the academic experience resulting from the STEM OPT extension is significant, and that on the whole, positive indirect effects on educational institutions and academic exchange support the availability of a STEM OPT extension at this time. Nevertheless, DHS recognizes the concerns expressed above and proposes to modify the terms and conditions for employer participation in the STEM OPT extension in order to protect U.S. workers from possible employer abuses of these programs.
For instance, any employer wishing to hire a student participating in the STEM OPT extension would, as part of a newly required Mentoring and Training Plan, be required to sign a sworn attestation affirming that, among other things: (1) The employer has sufficient resources and personnel available and is prepared to provide appropriate mentoring and training in connection with the specified opportunity; (2) the employer will not terminate, lay off, or furlough a U.S. worker as a result of providing the STEM OPT to the student; and (3) the student's opportunity assists the student in attaining his or her training objectives. As with all affirmations contained in the Mentoring and Training Plan, the employer would attest that these commitments are true and correct to the best of the employer's knowledge, information and belief.
Additionally, the proposed rule would require that the terms and conditions of an employer's STEM practical training opportunity—including duties, hours and compensation [url=](56)[/url]—be commensurate with those provided to the employer's similarly situated U.S. workers. Work duties must be designed to assist the student with continued learning and satisfy the existing ICE guidelines for work hours when participating in post-completion OPT, which are set at a minimum of 20 hours per week, and would be so defined under this proposed rule. [url=](57)[/url]If the employer does not employ and has not recently employed more than two similarly situated U.S. workers, the employer would be required to ensure that the terms and conditions of a STEM practical training opportunity are commensurate with those for similarly situated U.S. workers in other employers of analogous size and industry and in the same geographic area of employment. “Similarly situated U.S. workers” would include U.S. workers performing similar duties and with similar educational backgrounds, employment experience, levels of responsibility, and skill sets as the STEM OPT student. The student's compensation would be reported on the Mentoring and Training Plan and the student would be responsible for reporting any adjustments. DHS requests public comment, especially from employers and labor organizations, on all aspects of this provision, including the types of business factors employers would use to evaluate whether their workers are similarly situated.
With regard to the requirement to provide commensurate compensation, DHS anticipates that employers would be able to show compliance through a variety of existing real-world practices. So long as the attestation is made in good faith and to the best of the employer's knowledge, information and belief, employers would be able to continue relying on many of the same resources they already use, such as local associations or national or local wage surveys, to set compensation for their U.S. workers. The rule would also permit employers to rely on other bases for establishing compensation levels. For example, employers hiring high-skilled STEM OPT students would be able to refer to prevailing wages provided by the Department of Labor's Office of Foreign Labor Certification for employees in the same occupation in the same area of employment.
To help gauge compliance, employers would be required to provide DHS with student compensation information, which would better situate the agency to monitor whether STEM OPT students are being compensated fairly. This would both protect such students and ensure the practical training has no appreciable adverse consequences on the U.S. labor market. Additionally, the proposed rule would authorize a recurrent evaluation process that would allow ICE to monitor student progress during the OPT period. These evaluations would ensure continuous focus on the student's development throughout the student's training period, consistent with the Mentoring and Training Plan.
With the added assurances that a student will be enhancing his or her course of study through training-basedlearning experiences and mentoring, combined with the employer non-displacement assurance, the requirement that STEM OPT students receive terms and conditions of employment (including compensation) commensurate with those of similarly situated U.S. workers, and other related requirements, DHS is confident that practical training during the STEM OPT extension will be carried out in a manner that safeguards U.S. worker interests.
Some commenters to the 2008 IFR also expressed concern that the STEM OPT extension could be exploited by entities that hope to profit from the program but that may not have an actual STEM opportunity available for a student at the time of the student's application for the extension. To the extent that this comment refers to temporary placement agencies, DHS does not envision that such “temp” agencies will generally be able to provide eligible opportunities under the proposed STEM OPT extension, including by complying with the Mentoring and Training Plan process and requirements.
Moreover, under this rule, DSOs would be prohibited from recommending a student for a STEM OPT extension if the employer has not provided the assurances required by this rule or is otherwise not in compliance with the relevant reporting, evaluation and other requirements described in this rule. Additionally, DHS has the ability to deny STEM OPT extensions with employers that the agency determines have failed to comply with the regulatory requirements, including the requirement to formerly execute the student's Mentoring and Training Plan and the requirement to comply with the assurances contained therein. ICE may investigate an employer's compliance with these assurances, based on a complaint or otherwise, consistent with the proposed employer site visit provision discussed in the following section. These safeguards will more effectively ensure that STEM OPT students achieve the objectives of their courses of study, while benefiting U.S. academic institutions and protecting U.S. workers. DHS requests comment on the feasibility and effectiveness of each of these provisions, including the obligations to confirm (1) that the terms and conditions of a STEM OPT student's employment are commensurate with those for similarly situated U.S. workers, and (2) that no U.S. worker will be terminated, laid off, or furloughed as a result of a STEM OPT opportunity.
DHS recognizes that many university personnel submitted comments on the 2008 IFR highlighting the significant administrative burdens faced by DSOs in helping to coordinate participation in the F-1 program, including OPT. DHS acknowledges that the aforementioned proposals may impose additional resource burdens on DSOs, and may require universities to invest further in DSOs in order to take full advantage of the F-1 program. [url=](58)[/url]DHS requests comment from universities, DSOs, and other interested members of the public on how DHS can most effectively ensure an appropriate level of participation in this program by educational institutions. In light of the passage of time since implementation of the 2008 IFR, DHS particularly welcomes the submission of specific data related to the cost of implementation for that rulemaking.




zhouqi1991722 发表于 2015-11-11 05:14:37 | 显示全部楼层
回复 支持 1 反对 0

使用道具 举报

AnakinFoxe 发表于 2015-11-11 05:07:06 | 显示全部楼层
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

qingbinlee 发表于 2015-11-11 05:56:47 | 显示全部楼层
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

mint0715 发表于 2015-11-11 05:57:44 | 显示全部楼层

只能说,大家能有理有据的就写点,写不出来/英语不好/想偷懒的也请灌水支持下。. 1point3acres.com/bbs
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

yongmat 发表于 2015-11-11 06:11:42 | 显示全部楼层
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

forever2xxx 发表于 2015-11-11 06:35:40 | 显示全部楼层
高中物理老师经典名言:战略上藐视敌人,战术上重视敌人。我们心里清楚楼主说的那些,于是不至于妄自菲薄失去希望斗志,但是同时严谨的评论做事。不过楼主说的对,要尽量多引用证据打脸。摘抄出来免得我们自己去文件里面找也是好的。我本人其实也没怎么仔细看这个 rule.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

OPPOTIDUS 发表于 2015-11-11 06:50:23 | 显示全部楼层
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| shenyusong 发表于 2015-11-11 06:54:31 | 显示全部楼层
mint0715 发表于 2015-11-10 16:57
但无脑喷灌水贴多了也是有些负面作用的。虽然可能没什么质量,但那也是“大量的负面评 ...

一定不能掉以轻心啊,但灌水什么的确实没用,其实最好的办法就是有个领头的把大家集思广益的各种论据汇总起来写出一篇effective comment,这一篇comment会比无数个水贴都管用
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| shenyusong 发表于 2015-11-11 07:00:02 | 显示全部楼层
yongmat 发表于 2015-11-10 17:11
不管那些评论是不是无脑,他们反映的是某些美国人,甚至可能是在美国 ...

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| shenyusong 发表于 2015-11-11 07:02:06 | 显示全部楼层
OPPOTIDUS 发表于 2015-11-10 17:50

警惕起来是要滴,不过之前17个月打不赢官司的原因就是08年没有经过public comment就直接执行了,大大的硬伤,法官并没有否定17个月extension的本身不合法
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报



一亩三分地推荐上一条 /5 下一条


custom counter

GMT+8, 2017-7-26 18:50

Powered by Discuz! X3

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc. Design By HUXTeam

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表