rahulpatel
08-14 04:26 PM
Guys, thanks very much for your kind advices, but I already took the sufficient steps to ensure my H1 safety.
The only thing I am concerned here, is in regards my money--it being hard earned (it is not smaller amount, but nearly 8K!), and my chances of winning my case with DOL/Courts.
I already threatened my employer with the DOL/Court claim, but the guy may be over-stupid or over-reckless, he is just not bothering about this issue. So i want to really know what my chances are, on winning it? Because even if a paper asks me to wait for vendor pay, it can never mean months and years long,.... can it????
The only thing I am concerned here, is in regards my money--it being hard earned (it is not smaller amount, but nearly 8K!), and my chances of winning my case with DOL/Courts.
I already threatened my employer with the DOL/Court claim, but the guy may be over-stupid or over-reckless, he is just not bothering about this issue. So i want to really know what my chances are, on winning it? Because even if a paper asks me to wait for vendor pay, it can never mean months and years long,.... can it????
wallpaper Scarlett Johansson Is the
headhunter
09-27 10:18 PM
Guys-
If someone is asking advice , give it to him professionally. I know, including myself, everyone is frustrated. Quite honestly, most people forget that GC is for the benefit of the company not your benefit. Your benefit just comes along. They have this whole fuckin system because they need people from outside. Not because they love you. It is company that controls GC until you get it. So it is HIS company that is using the tricks of the trade. They can claim that they had lost profit since they did not have a permanent employee for long. All these jumping the queues and rules were framed for the benefit of the company. Not aliens, as they call us.
"If too many indians are ready to work hard by waiting for 10 yrs for their benefit, yeah why not, screw , I am not giving it to you." -- A mind of a Republican congressman
If someone is asking advice , give it to him professionally. I know, including myself, everyone is frustrated. Quite honestly, most people forget that GC is for the benefit of the company not your benefit. Your benefit just comes along. They have this whole fuckin system because they need people from outside. Not because they love you. It is company that controls GC until you get it. So it is HIS company that is using the tricks of the trade. They can claim that they had lost profit since they did not have a permanent employee for long. All these jumping the queues and rules were framed for the benefit of the company. Not aliens, as they call us.
"If too many indians are ready to work hard by waiting for 10 yrs for their benefit, yeah why not, screw , I am not giving it to you." -- A mind of a Republican congressman
spdy_mn
06-30 05:22 PM
Guys and Gals,
It's all speculation... Wait and see... we will all be fine... if you have your papers ready then file it.......
I'am staying positive..... Want y'all to do it too....
All the best....
Babloo bhai, you are the best. We needed this post. Hang in there guys, god willing everything will turn out to be good.
It's all speculation... Wait and see... we will all be fine... if you have your papers ready then file it.......
I'am staying positive..... Want y'all to do it too....
All the best....
Babloo bhai, you are the best. We needed this post. Hang in there guys, god willing everything will turn out to be good.
2011 scarlett johansson kiss
vinabath
03-24 03:12 PM
Dear VB,
I have noticed that you are creating new threads just for the heck of it. If you really have an issue that warrants a separate thread and discussion, please go ahead and do it. Please do not abuse the forum. Use your discretion wisely and stop creating threads that depict frustration.
Take it easy and cheer up brother!!
I have noticed that you are creating new threads just for the heck of it. If you really have an issue that warrants a separate thread and discussion, please go ahead and do it. Please do not abuse the forum. Use your discretion wisely and stop creating threads that depict frustration.
Take it easy and cheer up brother!!
more...
IneedAllGreen
06-28 02:45 PM
I have an important question that I need to ask here. What is going to be Job title in employment verification letter. For example if I work in company as a Software consultant and H1B states that I am Programmer Analysts and my PERM labor has stated Software Programmer Engineer.
So out of these 3 which one will going to be in my employment letter. I am unable to get in touch with attorney thru company and our HR doesnt know what to write in Employement letter. Any advise from people who already got their employement letter from their employer.
Thanks
INeedAllGreen
So out of these 3 which one will going to be in my employment letter. I am unable to get in touch with attorney thru company and our HR doesnt know what to write in Employement letter. Any advise from people who already got their employement letter from their employer.
Thanks
INeedAllGreen
Krilnon
01-21 11:31 PM
Feel free to steal any of the tedious collection work that I've done, like the JS/AS array associating the filename, author, and title.
Here is a ZIP archive with the SWFs that I harvested: http://reclipse.net/kirupa/fxpression09/fxpression_entries.zip
Here is a ZIP archive with the SWFs that I harvested: http://reclipse.net/kirupa/fxpression09/fxpression_entries.zip
more...
meridiani.planum
04-01 03:34 PM
inline...
I spoke to one lawyer and he said I can respond to I-140 RFE myself if I know wht it is about.
RFE goes to previous lawyer and previous employer. The I-140 is their petition. Ask this lawyer why an RFE will even be sent to you for the I-140? The 485 is your petition, any problem there and the RFE goes to you/your-lawyer. The 140 is the employers petition.
If USCIS allows one to port I-1485 and approvable I-140 I am not sure what is all this mess about?
the trouble is whenever there is a potential for an RFE, the case is by definition NOT "approvable". By definition the RFE implies that USCIS needs further information to process this case, and may choose to approve/deny based on your response to the RFE. An "approvable I-140" is one that does not need an RFE.
Can't I myself respond to the RFE?
no. other than online case status change you wont even know there is an RFE on your I-140. All communication is with the petitioner, who is your employer/sponsorer
I spoke to one lawyer and he said I can respond to I-140 RFE myself if I know wht it is about.
RFE goes to previous lawyer and previous employer. The I-140 is their petition. Ask this lawyer why an RFE will even be sent to you for the I-140? The 485 is your petition, any problem there and the RFE goes to you/your-lawyer. The 140 is the employers petition.
If USCIS allows one to port I-1485 and approvable I-140 I am not sure what is all this mess about?
the trouble is whenever there is a potential for an RFE, the case is by definition NOT "approvable". By definition the RFE implies that USCIS needs further information to process this case, and may choose to approve/deny based on your response to the RFE. An "approvable I-140" is one that does not need an RFE.
Can't I myself respond to the RFE?
no. other than online case status change you wont even know there is an RFE on your I-140. All communication is with the petitioner, who is your employer/sponsorer
2010 Scarlett Johansson#39;s debut
sdeshpan
07-10 04:29 PM
Wow, surprisingly the Eb-2 dates have moved ahead by 2 yrs!! I have a feeling they will go back to 2000 next month :p
more...
Koki
11-01 12:08 AM
To err is human. Just tell them the mistake done and it will be corrected manually. I made a mistake too. I took two copies of the form with me - one hand corrected and the other without the correction. Show them both if needed.
hair but Scarlett Johansson is
.jpg "hd scarlett johansson")
ufo2002
08-16 03:54 AM
Cuba isn't the only communist nation.
The special favorable treatment to Cubans is stemming from political needs than any lobbying. US wants to oppose the last remaining communist Government in Cuba and attract its citizens to establish a democratic government there. Please do not feel jealous of these special treatments.
To get a favorable treatement for Indians, wish for a communist revolution in India too. Then most of us would get the Greencard under Asylum quota or anti-communist quota. :D
The special favorable treatment to Cubans is stemming from political needs than any lobbying. US wants to oppose the last remaining communist Government in Cuba and attract its citizens to establish a democratic government there. Please do not feel jealous of these special treatments.
To get a favorable treatement for Indians, wish for a communist revolution in India too. Then most of us would get the Greencard under Asylum quota or anti-communist quota. :D
more...
raysaikat
07-10 07:06 PM
... I will only go for stamping AFTER my PIMS Verification is done in TIjuana, Mexico.
...
They can always decide to have a security clearance/check (most disciplines are listed in TAL). So always assume that you will be stuck for 2-3 months wherever you go for H1-B stamping. That means, go somewhere where you have a place to stay for free and hopefully can work on your job remotely.
...
They can always decide to have a security clearance/check (most disciplines are listed in TAL). So always assume that you will be stuck for 2-3 months wherever you go for H1-B stamping. That means, go somewhere where you have a place to stay for free and hopefully can work on your job remotely.
hot Scarlett-Johansson-boobs-1.gif
rvendra
05-18 02:11 PM
My case is EB 2 Dec 15th 2003 is priority date. I have filed my I 485 in August 2007. Still my case is pending more than 3 1/2 years. I have tried all possable options. Nothing is wokring out. Just simply telling background check is pending. Can you somebdoy helpme out other than WOM.
Thank you for your help
Raj
Thank you for your help
Raj
more...
house #scarlett johansson
newlife2
09-19 12:03 PM
Guys, I was just laid off and have efiled i539 3 days after the termination date for a status change to F2. Now working on the application letter. Do you think I should mention the layoff in the letter?
If I do mention it:
Con: The layoff might quickly catch the eyes of the immigration officer and if he want to check my status, he could find out the 3 days OOS.
Pro: My previous job was well paid. By mentioning it, I give the reason that why I want to stay at home as F2 instead of keeping the well paid job.
If I do mention it:
Con: The layoff might quickly catch the eyes of the immigration officer and if he want to check my status, he could find out the 3 days OOS.
Pro: My previous job was well paid. By mentioning it, I give the reason that why I want to stay at home as F2 instead of keeping the well paid job.
tattoo 2009/11/scarlett-johansson
![scarlett johansson gif. Scarlett-Johansson-22.jpg]](http://thesoulstyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Scarlett-Johansson-22.jpg "Scarlett-Johansson-22.jpg]")
alex99
06-28 03:12 PM
As far as I know We need only Employment offer letter. And the Designation should match your PERM Labor Certificate.
Sample Format:
DATE
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S. Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
Re: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker
Petitioner: XXXXXXXXX
Beneficiary: XXXXXXXXX
Dear Sir/Madam:
This is to certify that we had submitted petition for Alien Employment Certification on behalf of XXXXXXX. We are very much interested in continuing his employment with us in the capacity of XXXXXX(according to labor approval). His salary for the said employment will be $XXXXX (according to Labor approval)per year.
He will be managing XXXXXXXXXXXXX(according to Labor approval)
It should be noted that this is a full time and permanent position. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Yours Sincerely,
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
Sample Format:
DATE
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S. Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
Re: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker
Petitioner: XXXXXXXXX
Beneficiary: XXXXXXXXX
Dear Sir/Madam:
This is to certify that we had submitted petition for Alien Employment Certification on behalf of XXXXXXX. We are very much interested in continuing his employment with us in the capacity of XXXXXX(according to labor approval). His salary for the said employment will be $XXXXX (according to Labor approval)per year.
He will be managing XXXXXXXXXXXXX(according to Labor approval)
It should be noted that this is a full time and permanent position. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Yours Sincerely,
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
more...
pictures Scarlett Johansson middot; Gif
keepwalking
05-20 06:52 PM
It's a good idea to have dedicated for this topic (as this is becoming common issue for all who couldn't add their spouses earlier...)
I have started the following thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/2172703-pd-current-jun-11-adding-dependent-how-long-will-it-take-for-her-to-get-green-card-2.html#post2594710
Either we can follow the current one or the one I started (link above) or we can start a new thread altogether
I am fine with any of the above.
Hello,
I am also in the same situation. I filed 485 in July 2007 and got married later. I will be filing my wife's 485 in June. I was wondering how long will it take for her to get her 485 approved.
Is it a good idea to start a thread to track spouse I-485 filing post July '07 approvals?
Thanks!
I have started the following thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/2172703-pd-current-jun-11-adding-dependent-how-long-will-it-take-for-her-to-get-green-card-2.html#post2594710
Either we can follow the current one or the one I started (link above) or we can start a new thread altogether
I am fine with any of the above.
Hello,
I am also in the same situation. I filed 485 in July 2007 and got married later. I will be filing my wife's 485 in June. I was wondering how long will it take for her to get her 485 approved.
Is it a good idea to start a thread to track spouse I-485 filing post July '07 approvals?
Thanks!
dresses scarlett johansson iphone
dealsnet
02-27 09:33 AM
That is why US consulate is not giving visit visa to Indian youths 15-35 years of age.
They know, these guys will come here and work then marry a US citizen to remain legal.
So need legal entry is required, then remain illegal, without any problem, just marry a US citizen.
This is giving a problem to deserving visit visa applicants.
Thank you. I was going to reply to Dealsnet and state that, but you beat me to it.
On a side note, i was going to add that out of status itself does not determine the start of the clock, for the 3 and 10 year bans, .. that would be "unlawful stay" determined from the expiration of the date on the I-94 OR an administrative determination of unlawful stay based on when they discovered the out of status situation. However, for the above purposes [GC based on marriage], this point is moot.
They know, these guys will come here and work then marry a US citizen to remain legal.
So need legal entry is required, then remain illegal, without any problem, just marry a US citizen.
This is giving a problem to deserving visit visa applicants.
Thank you. I was going to reply to Dealsnet and state that, but you beat me to it.
On a side note, i was going to add that out of status itself does not determine the start of the clock, for the 3 and 10 year bans, .. that would be "unlawful stay" determined from the expiration of the date on the I-94 OR an administrative determination of unlawful stay based on when they discovered the out of status situation. However, for the above purposes [GC based on marriage], this point is moot.
more...
makeup #Film #GIF #Scarlett Johansson
MAEB2TR
09-04 10:34 AM
This is what I found in another thread:
"06/02/2007: NSC Procedure of Transfer of Pending I-1485 From Current Approved Underlying I-140 Petition to New I-140 Petition
� This posting involves aliens who are waiting for the I-485 applications where the underlying I-140 petition was approved but due to retrogression, I-485 cannot be approved. Most of these cases are EB-3 cases. When the same alien obtains an EB-2 labor certification approval through the same employer or a different employer and the visa number is available for the EB-2 for him or her, he should be eligible for filing another I-485 application based on the visa number available EB-2 I-140 petition. This can be achieved either by concurrent I-140/I-485 filing or if the new EB-2 I-140 has already been approved, by filing of stand-alone I-485 application.
� However, in the foregoing situation, the Pearson Memo of 2000 allows the alien to transfer the pending I-485 application from the existing underlying approved I-140 petition to a new EB-2 I-140 petition such that the alien does not have to file another I-485 application to use the second I-140 petition. For this to happen, two conditions must be met: (1) The existing underlying I-140 petition (most likely EB-3) must have been approved before the I-485 transfer is requested. (2) Secondly, the visa number must be "current" for the new I-140 petition (most likely EB-2) before the I-485 transfer is requested. Inasmuch as the visa number is current, the pending I-485 application that suffer from the visa number retrogression can be transferred to the nex I-140 petition.
� According to the Nebraska Service Center, people should take the following procedure to request such transfer of pending I-485 application from one I-140 petition to another I-140 petition:
o Request for Transfer of Pending I-485 Application to a Newly Filed I-140 Petition That Has Visa Number Current: In this situation, he/she is filing a new I-140 petition (probably EB-2 with visa number "current") with the agency to transfer the pending I-485 application and attach it to the new I-140 petition. The NSC states that if he/she files such new I-140 petition, he/she should use "large, bold print in the cover letter or with a separate, brightly colored cover page and notation 'Inter-file I-140 with Pending I-485' and include the Receipt/File Number of Pending I-485 Application, both on the Envelope and Cover Letter.
o Request for Transfer of Pending I-485 Application to Already Approved New I-140 (most likely EB-2 category): NSC asks to print the attached over sheet on brightly colored paper, and submitting it with a cover letter providing the following Information:
Name of 485 applicant
Name of I-140 petitioner (employer)
I-485 Receipt Number
"A" Number of the 485 applicant
Prior I-140 petition (1) Receipt Number, (2) Filing Date, and (3) Approval Date
New I-140 to be inter-filed
Statement requesting new I-140 be inter-filed with the pending I-485 application.
"06/02/2007: NSC Procedure of Transfer of Pending I-1485 From Current Approved Underlying I-140 Petition to New I-140 Petition
� This posting involves aliens who are waiting for the I-485 applications where the underlying I-140 petition was approved but due to retrogression, I-485 cannot be approved. Most of these cases are EB-3 cases. When the same alien obtains an EB-2 labor certification approval through the same employer or a different employer and the visa number is available for the EB-2 for him or her, he should be eligible for filing another I-485 application based on the visa number available EB-2 I-140 petition. This can be achieved either by concurrent I-140/I-485 filing or if the new EB-2 I-140 has already been approved, by filing of stand-alone I-485 application.
� However, in the foregoing situation, the Pearson Memo of 2000 allows the alien to transfer the pending I-485 application from the existing underlying approved I-140 petition to a new EB-2 I-140 petition such that the alien does not have to file another I-485 application to use the second I-140 petition. For this to happen, two conditions must be met: (1) The existing underlying I-140 petition (most likely EB-3) must have been approved before the I-485 transfer is requested. (2) Secondly, the visa number must be "current" for the new I-140 petition (most likely EB-2) before the I-485 transfer is requested. Inasmuch as the visa number is current, the pending I-485 application that suffer from the visa number retrogression can be transferred to the nex I-140 petition.
� According to the Nebraska Service Center, people should take the following procedure to request such transfer of pending I-485 application from one I-140 petition to another I-140 petition:
o Request for Transfer of Pending I-485 Application to a Newly Filed I-140 Petition That Has Visa Number Current: In this situation, he/she is filing a new I-140 petition (probably EB-2 with visa number "current") with the agency to transfer the pending I-485 application and attach it to the new I-140 petition. The NSC states that if he/she files such new I-140 petition, he/she should use "large, bold print in the cover letter or with a separate, brightly colored cover page and notation 'Inter-file I-140 with Pending I-485' and include the Receipt/File Number of Pending I-485 Application, both on the Envelope and Cover Letter.
o Request for Transfer of Pending I-485 Application to Already Approved New I-140 (most likely EB-2 category): NSC asks to print the attached over sheet on brightly colored paper, and submitting it with a cover letter providing the following Information:
Name of 485 applicant
Name of I-140 petitioner (employer)
I-485 Receipt Number
"A" Number of the 485 applicant
Prior I-140 petition (1) Receipt Number, (2) Filing Date, and (3) Approval Date
New I-140 to be inter-filed
Statement requesting new I-140 be inter-filed with the pending I-485 application.
girlfriend Scarlett-Johansson-22.jpg]
paskal
11-09 01:16 PM
I assume that all information provided will be kept private
all contact info is for internal iv use ONLY!
all contact info is for internal iv use ONLY!
hairstyles Anike-Scarlett-Johansson-1.gif
chanduv23
11-19 03:36 PM
Looks like this is the system that USCIS has been saying they are working on to identify pending cases.
Now, what if your case is pending and your Attorney is not a AILA member or you do not use an Attorney?
Now, what if your case is pending and your Attorney is not a AILA member or you do not use an Attorney?
sobers
02-09 08:58 AM
Discussion about challenges in America�s immigration policies tends to focus on the millions of illegal immigrants. But the more pressing immigration problem facing the US today, writes Intel chairman Craig Barrett, is the dearth of high-skilled immigrants required to keep the US economy competitive. Due to tighter visa policies and a growth in opportunities elsewhere in the world, foreign students majoring in science and engineering at US universities are no longer staying to work after graduation in the large numbers that they once did. With the poor quality of science and math education at the primary and secondary levels in the US, the country cannot afford to lose any highly-skilled immigrants, particularly in key, technology-related disciplines. Along with across-the-board improvements in education, the US needs to find a way to attract enough new workers so that companies like Intel do not have to set up shop elsewhere.
----------------------------------
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Craig Barrett
The Financial Times, 1 February 2006
America is experiencing a profound immigration crisis but it is not about the 11m illegal immigrants currently exciting the press and politicians in Washington. The real crisis is that the US is closing its doors to immigrants with degrees in science, maths and engineering � the �best and brightest� from around the world who flock to the country for its educational and employment opportunities. These foreign-born knowledge workers are critically important to maintaining America�s technological competitiveness.
This is not a new issue; the US has been partially dependent on foreign scientists and engineers to establish and maintain its technological leadership for several decades. After the second world war, an influx of German engineers bolstered our efforts in aviation and space research. During the 1960s and 1970s, a brain drain from western Europe supplemented our own production of talent. In the 1980s and 1990s, our ranks of scientists and engineers were swelled by Asian immigrants who came to study in our universities, then stayed to pursue professional careers.
The US simply does not produce enough home-grown graduates in engineering and the hard sciences to meet our needs. Even during the high-tech revolution of the past two decades, when demand for employees with technical degrees was exploding, the number of students majoring in engineering in the US declined. Currently more than half the graduate students in engineering in the US are foreign born � until now, many of them have stayed on to seek employment. But this trend is changing rapidly.
Because of security concerns and improved education in their own counties, it is increasingly difficult to get foreign students into our universities. Those who do complete their studies in the US are returning home in ever greater numbers because of visa issues or enhanced professional opportunities there. So while Congress debates how to stem the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border, it is actually our policies on highly skilled immigration that may most negatively affect the American economy.
The US does have a specified process for granting admission or permanent residency to foreign engineers and scientists. The H1-B visa programme sets a cap � currently at 65,000 � on the number of foreigners allowed to enter and work each year. But the programme is oversubscribed because the cap is insufficient to meet the demands of the knowledge-based US economy.
The system does not grant automatic entry to all foreign students who study engineering and science at US universities. I have often said, only half in jest, that we should staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student who graduates from an advanced technical degree programme here.
At a time when we need more science and technology professionals, it makes no sense to invite foreign students to study at our universities, educate them partially at taxpayer expense and then tell them to go home and take the jobs those talents will create home with them.
The current situation can only be described as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. We need experienced and talented workers if our economy is to thrive. We have an immigration problem that remains intractable and, in an attempt to appear tough on illegal immigration, we over-control the employment-based legal immigration system. As a consequence, we keep many of the potentially most productive immigrants out of the country. If we had purposefully set out to design a system that would hobble our ability to be competitive, we could hardly do better than what we have today. Certainly in the post 9/11 world, security must always be a foremost concern. But that concern should not prevent us from having access to the highly skilled workers we need.
Meanwhile, when it comes to training a skilled, home-grown workforce, the US is rapidly being left in the dust.
A full half of China�s college graduates earn degrees in engineering, compared with only 5 per cent in the US. Even South Korea, with one-sixth the population of the US, graduates about the same number of engineers as American universities do. Part of this is due to the poor quality of our primary and secondary education, where US students typically fare poorly compared with their international counterparts in maths and science.
In a global, knowledge-based economy, businesses will naturally gravitate to locations with a ready supply of knowledge-based workers. Intel is a US-based company and we are proud of the fact that we have hired almost 10,000 new US employees in the past four years. But the hard economic fact is that if we cannot find or attract the workers we need here, the company � like every other business � will go where the talent is located.
We in the US have only two real choices: we can stand on the sidelines while countries such as India, China, and others dominate the game � and accept the consequent decline in our standard of living. Or we can decide to compete.
Deciding to compete means reforming the appalling state of primary and secondary education, where low expectations have become institutionalised, and urgently expanding science education in colleges and universities � much as we did in the 1950s after the Soviet launch of Sputnik gave our nation a needed wake-up call.
As a member of the National Academies Committee assigned by Congress to investigate this issue and propose solutions, I and the other members recommended that the government create 25,000 undergraduate and 5,000 graduate scholarships, each of $20,000 (�11,300), in technical fields, especially those determined to be in areas of urgent �national need�. Other recommendations included a tax credit for employers who make continuing education available for scientists and engineers, so that our workforce can keep pace with the rapid advance of scientific discovery, and a sustained national commitment to basic research.
But we all realised that even an effective national effort in this area would not produce results quickly enough. That is why deciding to compete also means opening doors wider to foreigners with the kind of technical knowledge our businesses need. At a minimum the US should vastly increase the number of permanent visas for highly educated foreigners, streamline the process for those already working here and allow foreign students in the hard sciences and engineering to move directly to permanent resident status. Any country that wants to remain competitive has to start competing for the best minds in the world. Without that we may be unable to maintain economic leadership in the 21st century.
----------------------------------
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Craig Barrett
The Financial Times, 1 February 2006
America is experiencing a profound immigration crisis but it is not about the 11m illegal immigrants currently exciting the press and politicians in Washington. The real crisis is that the US is closing its doors to immigrants with degrees in science, maths and engineering � the �best and brightest� from around the world who flock to the country for its educational and employment opportunities. These foreign-born knowledge workers are critically important to maintaining America�s technological competitiveness.
This is not a new issue; the US has been partially dependent on foreign scientists and engineers to establish and maintain its technological leadership for several decades. After the second world war, an influx of German engineers bolstered our efforts in aviation and space research. During the 1960s and 1970s, a brain drain from western Europe supplemented our own production of talent. In the 1980s and 1990s, our ranks of scientists and engineers were swelled by Asian immigrants who came to study in our universities, then stayed to pursue professional careers.
The US simply does not produce enough home-grown graduates in engineering and the hard sciences to meet our needs. Even during the high-tech revolution of the past two decades, when demand for employees with technical degrees was exploding, the number of students majoring in engineering in the US declined. Currently more than half the graduate students in engineering in the US are foreign born � until now, many of them have stayed on to seek employment. But this trend is changing rapidly.
Because of security concerns and improved education in their own counties, it is increasingly difficult to get foreign students into our universities. Those who do complete their studies in the US are returning home in ever greater numbers because of visa issues or enhanced professional opportunities there. So while Congress debates how to stem the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border, it is actually our policies on highly skilled immigration that may most negatively affect the American economy.
The US does have a specified process for granting admission or permanent residency to foreign engineers and scientists. The H1-B visa programme sets a cap � currently at 65,000 � on the number of foreigners allowed to enter and work each year. But the programme is oversubscribed because the cap is insufficient to meet the demands of the knowledge-based US economy.
The system does not grant automatic entry to all foreign students who study engineering and science at US universities. I have often said, only half in jest, that we should staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student who graduates from an advanced technical degree programme here.
At a time when we need more science and technology professionals, it makes no sense to invite foreign students to study at our universities, educate them partially at taxpayer expense and then tell them to go home and take the jobs those talents will create home with them.
The current situation can only be described as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. We need experienced and talented workers if our economy is to thrive. We have an immigration problem that remains intractable and, in an attempt to appear tough on illegal immigration, we over-control the employment-based legal immigration system. As a consequence, we keep many of the potentially most productive immigrants out of the country. If we had purposefully set out to design a system that would hobble our ability to be competitive, we could hardly do better than what we have today. Certainly in the post 9/11 world, security must always be a foremost concern. But that concern should not prevent us from having access to the highly skilled workers we need.
Meanwhile, when it comes to training a skilled, home-grown workforce, the US is rapidly being left in the dust.
A full half of China�s college graduates earn degrees in engineering, compared with only 5 per cent in the US. Even South Korea, with one-sixth the population of the US, graduates about the same number of engineers as American universities do. Part of this is due to the poor quality of our primary and secondary education, where US students typically fare poorly compared with their international counterparts in maths and science.
In a global, knowledge-based economy, businesses will naturally gravitate to locations with a ready supply of knowledge-based workers. Intel is a US-based company and we are proud of the fact that we have hired almost 10,000 new US employees in the past four years. But the hard economic fact is that if we cannot find or attract the workers we need here, the company � like every other business � will go where the talent is located.
We in the US have only two real choices: we can stand on the sidelines while countries such as India, China, and others dominate the game � and accept the consequent decline in our standard of living. Or we can decide to compete.
Deciding to compete means reforming the appalling state of primary and secondary education, where low expectations have become institutionalised, and urgently expanding science education in colleges and universities � much as we did in the 1950s after the Soviet launch of Sputnik gave our nation a needed wake-up call.
As a member of the National Academies Committee assigned by Congress to investigate this issue and propose solutions, I and the other members recommended that the government create 25,000 undergraduate and 5,000 graduate scholarships, each of $20,000 (�11,300), in technical fields, especially those determined to be in areas of urgent �national need�. Other recommendations included a tax credit for employers who make continuing education available for scientists and engineers, so that our workforce can keep pace with the rapid advance of scientific discovery, and a sustained national commitment to basic research.
But we all realised that even an effective national effort in this area would not produce results quickly enough. That is why deciding to compete also means opening doors wider to foreigners with the kind of technical knowledge our businesses need. At a minimum the US should vastly increase the number of permanent visas for highly educated foreigners, streamline the process for those already working here and allow foreign students in the hard sciences and engineering to move directly to permanent resident status. Any country that wants to remain competitive has to start competing for the best minds in the world. Without that we may be unable to maintain economic leadership in the 21st century.
msyedy
01-12 06:57 PM
I understand this topic has been discussed ad nauseam, so I'm not raising this issue per se. I do not know where we stand on the likelihood of this provision getting passed by Feb 15th, but I do know that the Core group must be trying their best to get some provisions along these lines.
But just in case the "AOS without current PD" is seen as too big a change by the law makers or its sponsors in the undustry, I think it might be worthwhile to consider some of its watered-down alternatives. The law makers themselves may have a perception of this provision "creating a log jam at the AOS stage", not unlike the (mis)perception of some of IV members themselves!
Some alternatives are:
(a) Ability to file I-485 if the I-140 has been approved for X years, or if the I-140 has been pending for Y years (this is similar the provision of the ability to file H1 extensions beyond 6 years if a labor is pending). The advantage of this provision is that this will sound familiar with an already existing law; and will let the floodgates to AOS slowly and in a more controlled manner.
(b) Ability to file I-485 if the PD is within N years of the published PD in the Visa Bulletin. For example, assuming N = 2 years, India EB3 with PD 5/11/03 and India EB2 01/08/05 can file. Again this has the advantage of a more controlled entry via the Visa Bulletin, but at least it'll start clearing the queue and people can get their EAD, FBI name check, while waiting for the visa numbers to be available.
(c) If an Labor has been approved for X years
(d) If the alien has been on H1 for Y years
or a combination of any of the above
Please understand that I whole heartedly support the "AOS without current PD" provision; it's just that it would be wise to be ready with some alternatives should the need arise.
Why are you making it more complicated. People here want to get things done faster and relief for everyone.
According to your statement .(New formulas). people with I-140 approved for x years can file I-485 and so on......
If we are fighting for something nice, why not fight and say that we need everyone to be able to file I-485 like it was earlier. Reducing jam in USCIS is not a simple issue.By decreasing the number of I-485 filing the amount of time cannot be accuratly estimated that would take it to clear a case. USCIS can increase filling fees which they are thinking of doing to handle the current log jam they have, so I think we stick to and follow IV core.
But just in case the "AOS without current PD" is seen as too big a change by the law makers or its sponsors in the undustry, I think it might be worthwhile to consider some of its watered-down alternatives. The law makers themselves may have a perception of this provision "creating a log jam at the AOS stage", not unlike the (mis)perception of some of IV members themselves!
Some alternatives are:
(a) Ability to file I-485 if the I-140 has been approved for X years, or if the I-140 has been pending for Y years (this is similar the provision of the ability to file H1 extensions beyond 6 years if a labor is pending). The advantage of this provision is that this will sound familiar with an already existing law; and will let the floodgates to AOS slowly and in a more controlled manner.
(b) Ability to file I-485 if the PD is within N years of the published PD in the Visa Bulletin. For example, assuming N = 2 years, India EB3 with PD 5/11/03 and India EB2 01/08/05 can file. Again this has the advantage of a more controlled entry via the Visa Bulletin, but at least it'll start clearing the queue and people can get their EAD, FBI name check, while waiting for the visa numbers to be available.
(c) If an Labor has been approved for X years
(d) If the alien has been on H1 for Y years
or a combination of any of the above
Please understand that I whole heartedly support the "AOS without current PD" provision; it's just that it would be wise to be ready with some alternatives should the need arise.
Why are you making it more complicated. People here want to get things done faster and relief for everyone.
According to your statement .(New formulas). people with I-140 approved for x years can file I-485 and so on......
If we are fighting for something nice, why not fight and say that we need everyone to be able to file I-485 like it was earlier. Reducing jam in USCIS is not a simple issue.By decreasing the number of I-485 filing the amount of time cannot be accuratly estimated that would take it to clear a case. USCIS can increase filling fees which they are thinking of doing to handle the current log jam they have, so I think we stick to and follow IV core.
No comments:
Post a Comment