chanduv23
01-07 07:39 AM
Please particiapte in our attempts to build the community through constant grassroots efforts. We want every member to feel they are an integral part of IV.
We will be continuing to build our community strong on models of successful organizations like AAPI, AAA, AARP ...... where people get a sense of community.
Very often our community (immigrant) seems to always have divided opinions and views and such things keep us away from being one strong community. When we reach new shores, we must keep everything aside -
"lets all forget that they are Indian we are Chinese" ,
"lets forget that they are Tamil we are Hindi",
lets forget that "they are Reddy and we are Khamma"
- lets look at what binds us together?
As Skilled workers what do we have in common? Our community is intelligent, hard working, honest and contribute. We are entitled for fair processes. is it Individual entitlement? is it collective?
What can bind us? A common goal and a common drive and common wisdom.
Our efforts this year and moving forward will be towards buliding trust, community, working towards small successes, workingh towards community help and for that we need all your cooperation and help. We need everyone to join hands. Lets all join hands for one IV - One Voice
We will be continuing to build our community strong on models of successful organizations like AAPI, AAA, AARP ...... where people get a sense of community.
Very often our community (immigrant) seems to always have divided opinions and views and such things keep us away from being one strong community. When we reach new shores, we must keep everything aside -
"lets all forget that they are Indian we are Chinese" ,
"lets forget that they are Tamil we are Hindi",
lets forget that "they are Reddy and we are Khamma"
- lets look at what binds us together?
As Skilled workers what do we have in common? Our community is intelligent, hard working, honest and contribute. We are entitled for fair processes. is it Individual entitlement? is it collective?
What can bind us? A common goal and a common drive and common wisdom.
Our efforts this year and moving forward will be towards buliding trust, community, working towards small successes, workingh towards community help and for that we need all your cooperation and help. We need everyone to join hands. Lets all join hands for one IV - One Voice
radhay
08-21 04:33 PM
Hi, I am in the exact same situation. USCIS approved my H1B but didn't issue I-94. Along with the H1B approval letter there was explanation why they can't issue me 'H1B status' and also suggesting me to leave country and apply for H1B visa at the consulate using the approved petition.
I didn't leave the country as my lawyer suggested this is a matter of grey area and every thing rests on Immigration's officer's interpretation and judgement. Didn't want to take chance.
The solution? we filed 'nunc-pro-tunk' petition with the proof that it was a honest mistake on part of employer and I shouldn't be penalized for that. Now I am waiting for the USCIS decision.
I have an EAD and pending 485 so I am continuing to work. In your situation if you have 485 pending/EAD you shoud be OK.
I didn't leave the country as my lawyer suggested this is a matter of grey area and every thing rests on Immigration's officer's interpretation and judgement. Didn't want to take chance.
The solution? we filed 'nunc-pro-tunk' petition with the proof that it was a honest mistake on part of employer and I shouldn't be penalized for that. Now I am waiting for the USCIS decision.
I have an EAD and pending 485 so I am continuing to work. In your situation if you have 485 pending/EAD you shoud be OK.
sledge_hammer
05-21 02:47 PM
Hi,
My parents will be visiting in the year end and I want to send them the required documents to get the visa application going. Can anyone here post a template for the following -
1. Invitation letter from the sponsor to the visitor visa applicant
2. Letter to consulate by the sponsor
Also for bank statements, can I use the prinout from PDF available online from my bank website (banf of america)? Do these printouts need notarization?
I would appreciate any info.
Thanks!
My parents will be visiting in the year end and I want to send them the required documents to get the visa application going. Can anyone here post a template for the following -
1. Invitation letter from the sponsor to the visitor visa applicant
2. Letter to consulate by the sponsor
Also for bank statements, can I use the prinout from PDF available online from my bank website (banf of america)? Do these printouts need notarization?
I would appreciate any info.
Thanks!
njboy
12-02 11:19 AM
what are our chances if the Dream Act does not pass? Dream is #7 on the list.
Ironically, if a stand alone Dream act without any visa recapture does not pass, our chances of getting a visa recapture added to a bill in 2011 are much greater. The reason is, AILA may start lobbying for our cause, so that they can generate revenues on the 485 filing fees. Most lawyers charge fees for permanent residency application piecemeal. 2K for perm, 1K for 140 (more if premium) etc etc. So we still have some lobbying power with them, considering the fact that they stand to gain atleast $1000 from each family.
The main consideration for lobbying is ofcourse, is there more fees to be charged by our filing for 485, or by keeping us on H1-B. You have to remember, us losing our H1-B status is like them killing a golden goose. No more H1B renewal payout every 3 years
Ironically, if a stand alone Dream act without any visa recapture does not pass, our chances of getting a visa recapture added to a bill in 2011 are much greater. The reason is, AILA may start lobbying for our cause, so that they can generate revenues on the 485 filing fees. Most lawyers charge fees for permanent residency application piecemeal. 2K for perm, 1K for 140 (more if premium) etc etc. So we still have some lobbying power with them, considering the fact that they stand to gain atleast $1000 from each family.
The main consideration for lobbying is ofcourse, is there more fees to be charged by our filing for 485, or by keeping us on H1-B. You have to remember, us losing our H1-B status is like them killing a golden goose. No more H1B renewal payout every 3 years
more...
trueguy
08-28 11:19 AM
Ron sent an inquiry and here is the answer he got
Ron also says
Visa Bulletin says
So I predict the EB3 RoW Oct bulletin will be what it was on June Bulletin but EB3 China and India will not be the same as June bulletin.
When they say "Continued Heavy Demand", what does it mean? Howcome there can be demand with Older Priority Dates? Labor Substitution is no longer possible so there can't be new demand with Older PD. So howcome PD goes back? Does anybody have insight into that?
Ron also says
Visa Bulletin says
So I predict the EB3 RoW Oct bulletin will be what it was on June Bulletin but EB3 China and India will not be the same as June bulletin.
When they say "Continued Heavy Demand", what does it mean? Howcome there can be demand with Older Priority Dates? Labor Substitution is no longer possible so there can't be new demand with Older PD. So howcome PD goes back? Does anybody have insight into that?
learning01
02-25 05:03 PM
This is the most compelling piece I read about why this country should do more for scientists and engineers who are on temporary work visas. Read it till the end and enjoy.
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
more...
rennieallen
09-27 01:28 AM
EB-3 ROW = EB-3 Rest of World then there's EB-3 Mainland China, EB-3 Mexico, EB-3 India and EB-3 Philippines. Please correct me if I'm wrong. :D
Actually, I don't think there really is a ROW is there? Isn't it just that 193 country columns isn't practical.
Actually, I don't think there really is a ROW is there? Isn't it just that 193 country columns isn't practical.
ras
02-12 11:08 AM
Why dont you consider one of attorney offices that provide free call services to IV members. That would help you as well as help IV community. May be you can consider Prashanthi Reddy or Raj at Shusterman or Siskind Law firm.
Hello,
My company is planning to do an EB2 GC for me. My H1B was done with this law firm called Chugh Law Firm which my company hires.
I had no problem in my H1B.
Here in these discussions I see many people asking to go to the best lawyers for greencards etc.
Does anybody know about this law firm, and your experiences please. Do you recommend I can be safe with them.
Thank you,
Bobby
Hello,
My company is planning to do an EB2 GC for me. My H1B was done with this law firm called Chugh Law Firm which my company hires.
I had no problem in my H1B.
Here in these discussions I see many people asking to go to the best lawyers for greencards etc.
Does anybody know about this law firm, and your experiences please. Do you recommend I can be safe with them.
Thank you,
Bobby
more...
goosetavo
03-03 02:20 AM
C'mon guys, you are supposed to be the smartes of the smart here. The bill referenced above has nothing for EB-immigrants true, but it is not the Bill proposed in the US House for CIR in 2010 (it has ZERO Co-sponsors), the "good one" is HR 4321 (93 co-sponsors):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h4321ih.txt.pdf
It's the CIR ASAP act, see postings from me from last year for a summary. This bill recaptures lost GC's from the last two decades and exempts STEM degree holders from the numerical caps, read it, its all there.
Can we stop hating on illegal immigrants? Please read Pappu's postings on the subject, this whinning does nothing to help our cause. We're all in this together. The CIR ASAP Act does put more limits on H1B visas, which is unfortunate, but we need to try and negotiate here, not throw everything away.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h4321ih.txt.pdf
It's the CIR ASAP act, see postings from me from last year for a summary. This bill recaptures lost GC's from the last two decades and exempts STEM degree holders from the numerical caps, read it, its all there.
Can we stop hating on illegal immigrants? Please read Pappu's postings on the subject, this whinning does nothing to help our cause. We're all in this together. The CIR ASAP Act does put more limits on H1B visas, which is unfortunate, but we need to try and negotiate here, not throw everything away.
sam_hoosier
06-20 04:44 PM
Gurus
Please advice on the usage of A number
I came here as student and OPT before, the OPT had a A number
In my approved I-140 i had a A number, both the numbers are different
While filing the forms for 485/EAD/AP and I-693 ( medical report ) i saw a field for A number
Which number must i put in the field
Regards
You would have this number only once your 485 is approved, so just leave it blank for now.
Please advice on the usage of A number
I came here as student and OPT before, the OPT had a A number
In my approved I-140 i had a A number, both the numbers are different
While filing the forms for 485/EAD/AP and I-693 ( medical report ) i saw a field for A number
Which number must i put in the field
Regards
You would have this number only once your 485 is approved, so just leave it blank for now.
more...
arthsidhu
08-31 11:07 AM
I completely agree with MDM101. This forum is for Immigration issues not about finding a job. Legal immigrants from all over the world visit this website to find info on immigration. By highlighting the word desi companies, desi immigrants or desi ***** all you are doing is alienating immigrants.
If you need help finding a job visit monter.com or dice.com .
If you need help finding a job visit monter.com or dice.com .
learning01
02-25 05:03 PM
This is the most compelling piece I read about why this country should do more for scientists and engineers who are on temporary work visas. Read it till the end and enjoy.
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
more...
sujith1
07-12 02:02 PM
The application was received on 7/10 and the checks were cashed today - How will you receive the resceipt number ? Would it come in the mail?
gcisadawg
02-03 02:12 PM
hello boss...
whoever is replying to my thread...
iam not faking or frauding anything ..and you guys dont have any right to tell me.
I had a very nice job back in my home country and iam well experienced guy..
unfortunately due to some personal reasons nothing strike me in my way.
u guys dont have to be so rude.
thought i will get help from this forum but not a negative response
thanku very much
I understand you are experienced and had a great job at home! But do you understand that you have already broken the law?
whoever is replying to my thread...
iam not faking or frauding anything ..and you guys dont have any right to tell me.
I had a very nice job back in my home country and iam well experienced guy..
unfortunately due to some personal reasons nothing strike me in my way.
u guys dont have to be so rude.
thought i will get help from this forum but not a negative response
thanku very much
I understand you are experienced and had a great job at home! But do you understand that you have already broken the law?
more...
smuggymba
10-05 11:00 AM
^^
they did that in 1996 and all this EB3 backlog is a result of that Z visa.Mnay of them have GC now.
Do you guys know if there is any restrictions on which employer to work for on Z visa and whether there are any travel restrictions?
they did that in 1996 and all this EB3 backlog is a result of that Z visa.Mnay of them have GC now.
Do you guys know if there is any restrictions on which employer to work for on Z visa and whether there are any travel restrictions?
gsc999
04-02 12:54 PM
Hi,
I am in the Peninsula, in Nor. Cal. My congress woman is Anna Eshoo. Please let me know how I can help. I have called her office and asked for support for the STRIVE bill. I will call her office again and set up a meeting. Need the collateral from IV. Anyone near around this area?
I am in the Peninsula, in Nor. Cal. My congress woman is Anna Eshoo. Please let me know how I can help. I have called her office and asked for support for the STRIVE bill. I will call her office again and set up a meeting. Need the collateral from IV. Anyone near around this area?
more...
newtoearth
05-03 12:56 AM
congrats dude
gc_on_demand
03-17 10:40 AM
Even I have received the RFEs as well on pending I-485 cases for me and my wife. My PD is Mar 2005. I am also wondering about the RFEs. I'll share mine as soon as I get those.
update profile first and help community..
update profile first and help community..
fatboysam
05-16 09:40 AM
I have couple of doubts whether i will be able to qualify or not, which i want to clairify.
Ofcourse i will apply in Skilled workers category, i do not have any Canada experience, so according to the official website, i might not qualify because i am not a Manager.
I do not see any option for a software engineer, Am i missing anything ?
Immigrating to Canada: Skilled workers and professionals - Who can apply (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/apply-who.asp)
Ofcourse i will apply in Skilled workers category, i do not have any Canada experience, so according to the official website, i might not qualify because i am not a Manager.
I do not see any option for a software engineer, Am i missing anything ?
Immigrating to Canada: Skilled workers and professionals - Who can apply (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/apply-who.asp)
gchetna
09-10 11:44 AM
Thanks for your response. I am hoping that I will be able to tell them to give me time to get my H1B transfered. They have always been very understanding so far, but you never know...Thanks guys
chanduv23
02-25 04:11 PM
Is it referring to any USCIS docs? Has any lawyer ever warned about this? Has green card been revoked for people who had to quit jobs? Does this website point to any valid link?
No comments:
Post a Comment