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.
qasleuth
03-31 12:35 PM
If you do not want to wait for your employer to give you details about the report, you can order one for yourself using a service like Personal record search (includes criminal reports) from www.choicetrust.com.
If I were you, I would not wait around for details from the employer but spend the $25 and get all the info I can and dispute whatever is incorrect.
If I were you, I would not wait around for details from the employer but spend the $25 and get all the info I can and dispute whatever is incorrect.
Munna Bhai
08-24 01:34 PM
Can interfiling done for spouse. I filed 485 based on my PERM labor. Can I interfile this 485 when my wifes labor gets approved from Backlog.
Here is what I got update from my attorney:
"Once the I-140 is approved(EB3, Nov 2004), we will write to the Immigration Service requesting them to apply that priority date to the pending I-485 (EB2, Feb 2006) application."
Hope this helps.
Here is what I got update from my attorney:
"Once the I-140 is approved(EB3, Nov 2004), we will write to the Immigration Service requesting them to apply that priority date to the pending I-485 (EB2, Feb 2006) application."
Hope this helps.
sanjay
03-28 10:44 AM
Thanks for this great feature. It definitely looks promising. But, some how I find my information missing. Is there a place where I can add my information. my IV profile already got all my info.
more...
chil3
08-24 12:40 PM
yes my date is eb3 jan 2007...I think this is part of the whole pre approval thing
I work for University since 2002 with very straightforward case hence suprised
ok..here is part 2.
Employer was able to speak to USICIS officer. He asked
whethere
1) I was contractor
2) from when I was employed
3) Work timings
4) exact office Location
my supervisor asked why all these questions about location and timing they said they will do a site visit
I feel if my app can trigger this than any other app could...
The USICs is just getting crazy with all the bueracacy crap
USCIS is not getting crazy ....It's preplanned well defined strategy to kick out immigrants ...first they choked the system so that everyone is stuck and now picking more & more people in the name of verification
I work for University since 2002 with very straightforward case hence suprised
ok..here is part 2.
Employer was able to speak to USICIS officer. He asked
whethere
1) I was contractor
2) from when I was employed
3) Work timings
4) exact office Location
my supervisor asked why all these questions about location and timing they said they will do a site visit
I feel if my app can trigger this than any other app could...
The USICs is just getting crazy with all the bueracacy crap
USCIS is not getting crazy ....It's preplanned well defined strategy to kick out immigrants ...first they choked the system so that everyone is stuck and now picking more & more people in the name of verification
NKR
08-14 04:46 PM
Please note that, this is no more the issue of not-paying me at all-- He cleverly cleared recently the amount which is stated on my LCA H1. What he is actually withholding, is the difference of this and the actual salary (percentage) that was agreed upon, at that time.
Then I am afraid you have no case. If the vendor has paid your employer and he is not paying you after you told them you are quitting then it is unethical, but legal, sometimes I wonder how do they even feed their family and clothe them with all this ill gotten money.
Then I am afraid you have no case. If the vendor has paid your employer and he is not paying you after you told them you are quitting then it is unethical, but legal, sometimes I wonder how do they even feed their family and clothe them with all this ill gotten money.
more...
chem2
08-29 10:14 PM
PAR: parolee
ramboom1
04-09 03:14 PM
The CIR has gone into Senate Judiciary Committee. In my opinion, IV has worked as professional unit and acheived a lot. The task handled by IV core team is new just as it would be for any of us. IV need not even mention about the theorist. Let IV go about its task and there are so many people supporting it and contributing to it. IF CIR does not work out, there will be other options.
Good Luck and Best wishes.
Good Luck and Best wishes.
more...
nviren
10-26 04:05 PM
I did not see lot of approvals coming out from Nebraska this week.
Wondering why they are so silent?
Have they changed their focus?
Any ideas?
Wondering why they are so silent?
Have they changed their focus?
Any ideas?
eucalyptus.mp
02-18 03:46 PM
Thanks Pritam , can u give me u r email id so that i can share resume
more...
cessua
04-05 03:53 PM
I am in a similar situation, i am on my 5th year H1B ROW and my laywer sent in the I485 before the retrogression started but i still have to wait for the PD to be current.
I am finishing an MBA in two months and i have had a few interviews but not sure what the wisest thing is.
Advise?
I am finishing an MBA in two months and i have had a few interviews but not sure what the wisest thing is.
Advise?
beemboy
11-16 06:12 PM
That is exactly what the senate has been doing. And the House too.
Nice one riva2005. :D :D
Nice one riva2005. :D :D
more...
saketh555
05-04 03:21 PM
I'm moving from MI to TX and need to do something address. Does premium mail forwarding service works for USCIS notices? I know regular mail forwarding doesn't work and they'll be returned to INS. Please let me know if premium service works or not.
Thanks.
Thanks.
h1bnogc
08-30 06:51 AM
The officer can only look at the current I-797, cannot give an i-94 as per the future I-797. The other posters were correct last action rule does apply, however in my interpretation of the last action rule since your I-797 is not effective until November 2009 and your entry was before that, your last action in this case will be the latest I-797 and it will therefore be valid. In my opinion the Officer was correct in informing you that their is no problem for you to use your latest I-797 once the old one expires. Make sure you don't have a gap in the dates between the expiry of the old I-797 and start date of the new one.
Thanks for taking time in responding to our queries.I understand this is old thread, still questions are same It looks like in this travel scenario, extension of stay makes thing more complicated than h1b transfer because of start and end date of extension and travel date.
It appears that if POE officers gives new I94 based on future I797 or old I797, as far as there is no gap, it is ok.
How about there is overlap? let say new I94 issued by POE officer expires Oct 10 (current H1B expires sep 30 + courtesy= 10), one attached with extension of stay approval start Oct 1. Is this a problem (last action rule or anything else)?
thanks for your response...
Thanks for taking time in responding to our queries.I understand this is old thread, still questions are same It looks like in this travel scenario, extension of stay makes thing more complicated than h1b transfer because of start and end date of extension and travel date.
It appears that if POE officers gives new I94 based on future I797 or old I797, as far as there is no gap, it is ok.
How about there is overlap? let say new I94 issued by POE officer expires Oct 10 (current H1B expires sep 30 + courtesy= 10), one attached with extension of stay approval start Oct 1. Is this a problem (last action rule or anything else)?
thanks for your response...
more...
yetanotherguyinline
11-09 01:01 PM
I have decent writing skills and can help.
skv
08-30 05:09 PM
Congratulations, my friend! :)
more...
veni001
06-04 10:34 AM
If this is old then why did i see it on THOMAS as
=====================================
S.1348
Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 5/9/2007) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 5/25/2007 Senate floor actions. Status: Considered by Senate.
======================================
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused::confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
======================================
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01348:
=====================================
S.1348
Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 5/9/2007) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 5/25/2007 Senate floor actions. Status: Considered by Senate.
======================================
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused::confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
======================================
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01348:
kart2007
10-24 06:36 PM
finally status for EAD and AP changed to " documents mailed".
But yesterday i received a letter from USCIS related to the fax I did before.
and as per that letter, my request to expedite my EAD and AP is not valid(?????????????) so they sent my fax back (print out). I really dont understand this!!!!!!!!!!
waiting for EAD & AP hopefully I will get it tomorrow.
Good luck
But was your AP/EAD in Pending status or Approved status when you emailed the Ombdusman?
But yesterday i received a letter from USCIS related to the fax I did before.
and as per that letter, my request to expedite my EAD and AP is not valid(?????????????) so they sent my fax back (print out). I really dont understand this!!!!!!!!!!
waiting for EAD & AP hopefully I will get it tomorrow.
Good luck
But was your AP/EAD in Pending status or Approved status when you emailed the Ombdusman?
averagedesi
09-14 10:58 AM
Here is something interesting
My wife got her EAD approved for 2 years, she is suppose to get her extension only for a year as on Sep 10 when they renewed her card the priority dates were current.
USCIS an organization that is above and beyond the laws of this country.
My wife got her EAD approved for 2 years, she is suppose to get her extension only for a year as on Sep 10 when they renewed her card the priority dates were current.
USCIS an organization that is above and beyond the laws of this country.
sbvw76
10-09 10:42 AM
For the past 2 renewals in FL for me it was like that. They will give exactly for 1 year and will have TEMPORARY in red color font.
Couple of times during travel, Airport TSA authorities asked me why it is temporary in DL and asked me do you have any other photo id proof. So I started carrying Passport with me during the travel to avoid this mess.
Couple of times during travel, Airport TSA authorities asked me why it is temporary in DL and asked me do you have any other photo id proof. So I started carrying Passport with me during the travel to avoid this mess.
kirupa
01-15 06:09 PM
Does this sound reasonable?
Circles that are skewed or transformed or 3d-rotated as part of the animation/user-intearction are OK, but avoid using ovals as part of the design itself.
Circles that are skewed or transformed or 3d-rotated as part of the animation/user-intearction are OK, but avoid using ovals as part of the design itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment