BharatPremi
07-10 01:01 AM
Hope "Flower Campaign" will not irritate USCIS and backfire on us, to tough the immigration process.
This is a classic example of impotent mind. If you fear to send flowers then you do not deserve even permanent residency of the country where you born:eek:
This is a classic example of impotent mind. If you fear to send flowers then you do not deserve even permanent residency of the country where you born:eek:
krishmunn
07-16 04:05 PM
People who do Consular Processing do complete their medical in designated hospitals in India. I know Jaslok and Lilavati in Mumbai are such approved hospitals and medicals from thsoe are accepted by US Consulate in India for Immigrant Visa (Consular Processing). However, will the same be accepted by CIS for AOS is the question. check with your attorney and do mention this information (that CP candidates can do medical overseas in designated hospitals).
xyz2005
08-02 01:09 AM
hi:
I am filing my I140 and i485 togther this week. I have had 2 previous employers to the current one.
I wporked for my first employer for nearly 3 years ( some months less) and then other employer for some 4 months and finally switching to the current employer..where I have been working for 6.5 years.
I am getting experience letter from first employer but second employer where I worked for 4 months has no record.
Is it ok to file I140 with just experienced letters from my first and the present employer and let go the one with just 4 months? Please let me now..I did call the former employer who worked there..but she also does not remmeber because it was 7 years back and that too for short time.
Please let me know..is that is risky or will come back with RFE?
DB
Well few comments:
- For LC you cannot use your current work exp...it has to be relevant prior one
- Your first one (if its relevant is the one you can use) and if second one is not relevant to your LC at current position then you can ignore it. If its relevant then every month will count and you should get one work exp from second one as well.
- Now if there is nobody at second place (in the company who can give this work exp letter) then hunt or locate any colleague and tell him to give work exp letter in his or her current letter head. This has to be done.
- For clarity sake , make one work exp letter with the set of responsibilities and send it everywhere so that all have same set of duties that are in LC.
Thanks and take care
Best Regards,
I am filing my I140 and i485 togther this week. I have had 2 previous employers to the current one.
I wporked for my first employer for nearly 3 years ( some months less) and then other employer for some 4 months and finally switching to the current employer..where I have been working for 6.5 years.
I am getting experience letter from first employer but second employer where I worked for 4 months has no record.
Is it ok to file I140 with just experienced letters from my first and the present employer and let go the one with just 4 months? Please let me now..I did call the former employer who worked there..but she also does not remmeber because it was 7 years back and that too for short time.
Please let me know..is that is risky or will come back with RFE?
DB
Well few comments:
- For LC you cannot use your current work exp...it has to be relevant prior one
- Your first one (if its relevant is the one you can use) and if second one is not relevant to your LC at current position then you can ignore it. If its relevant then every month will count and you should get one work exp from second one as well.
- Now if there is nobody at second place (in the company who can give this work exp letter) then hunt or locate any colleague and tell him to give work exp letter in his or her current letter head. This has to be done.
- For clarity sake , make one work exp letter with the set of responsibilities and send it everywhere so that all have same set of duties that are in LC.
Thanks and take care
Best Regards,
neeidd
11-09 06:06 PM
Hi ,
I am planning to use AP for re-enter to USA. Could someone please let me know the list the documents that I should carry ?
Thanks
I am planning to use AP for re-enter to USA. Could someone please let me know the list the documents that I should carry ?
Thanks
more...
h1techSlave
02-02 10:35 AM
we must always have a current and valid AP even if we have no plans of travel.
Last year we were thinking that "1) I'm not planning on going anywhere after / atleast for a year.". Then one of our parents had an accident and we could not go, because there was no valid AP.
I guess, we can not take any chance on AP or EAD. Apply prior to the 120th day of expiry.
Thanks MC thats a valid Point.
There are 2 reasons that I thought of for not applying / renewing.
1) I'm not planning on going anywhere after / atleast for a year.
2) My wife's AP filed last year took Six months to get approved and what happens if you fly out while your AP is pending / sent for renewal. I read in this forum, not fly out, while you AP is pending.
Appreciate your time.
Regards
Karthik
Last year we were thinking that "1) I'm not planning on going anywhere after / atleast for a year.". Then one of our parents had an accident and we could not go, because there was no valid AP.
I guess, we can not take any chance on AP or EAD. Apply prior to the 120th day of expiry.
Thanks MC thats a valid Point.
There are 2 reasons that I thought of for not applying / renewing.
1) I'm not planning on going anywhere after / atleast for a year.
2) My wife's AP filed last year took Six months to get approved and what happens if you fly out while your AP is pending / sent for renewal. I read in this forum, not fly out, while you AP is pending.
Appreciate your time.
Regards
Karthik
payur
04-11 10:26 AM
Go for consulting job where you can stick to one company and continue your gc process. You will get better paid, you will meet more people, you will learn more and once you get green card you will have options to choose from the contacts.
more...
Jubba
10-20 05:47 PM
Where do I put these brush files? They are in the folder, but Photoshop isn't reading them...
abhijitp
02-12 06:13 PM
Now hang on a minute there!
There are IV volunteers leading double/triple lives juggling full time jobs, families AND full time IV work and some members have the GALL to say that:
I dont want to take the pain of "mailing the letters"
Anyone giving this excuse has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT from this point on to complain. This is as easy as the IV core can make it! Write those letters or SUFFER IN SILENCE
Bang on.
People discuss Visa Bulletins to no end, but why don't they pick up a pen and paper to DO SOMETHING that will render Visa Bulletins virtually meaningless ("ability to file I-485 without PD being current")?
There are IV volunteers leading double/triple lives juggling full time jobs, families AND full time IV work and some members have the GALL to say that:
I dont want to take the pain of "mailing the letters"
Anyone giving this excuse has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT from this point on to complain. This is as easy as the IV core can make it! Write those letters or SUFFER IN SILENCE
Bang on.
People discuss Visa Bulletins to no end, but why don't they pick up a pen and paper to DO SOMETHING that will render Visa Bulletins virtually meaningless ("ability to file I-485 without PD being current")?
more...
papajon
06-18 07:13 PM
Before answering something like this, you should know what you are answering.
could you please explain?
UPDATED my original post: also, im on my 7th yr extension and it will expire on FEB2010... will I have problems with my extension?
could you please explain?
UPDATED my original post: also, im on my 7th yr extension and it will expire on FEB2010... will I have problems with my extension?
zilmax007
12-02 03:53 PM
Same here.
Mine & my wife's 485s were wrongfully denied last year.
We gave USCIS a chance to fix their mistake on the file. They fixed it.
If they shouldn't have fixed it , I would be a mini millionaire by now :)
But, my online status still shows as denied. Last month we got our
EADs and APs renewed without any issues. So, I don't care about the
online status.
Mine & my wife's 485s were wrongfully denied last year.
We gave USCIS a chance to fix their mistake on the file. They fixed it.
If they shouldn't have fixed it , I would be a mini millionaire by now :)
But, my online status still shows as denied. Last month we got our
EADs and APs renewed without any issues. So, I don't care about the
online status.
more...
reddog
10-18 02:15 PM
When they do FP, they tries to match with criminal database. Why do they want to match to the Port of entry or Security clearance database and give RED color warning. I think it is something you need to work with your attorney. Even in Name check, they tries to match with Criminal first, middle or last names and if match found, they do some investigation on your case. Same logic goes with FP. They won't match with good records, but they tries to search in bad records. It is simple common sense. Nothing to panic, but check with your attorney.
That is so not true, you are linking this to the criminal database?
SO as soon as the finger printing is done, within a fraction of a second, they match your fingerprints to the criminals and even let you know that by displaying a Red sign.
Leos link has the answer, the red match found error is simply an error between your finger prints taken together and then done individually.
The Service rep also individually goes thru all the FPs to check if the FPs taken together match those done individually.
That is so not true, you are linking this to the criminal database?
SO as soon as the finger printing is done, within a fraction of a second, they match your fingerprints to the criminals and even let you know that by displaying a Red sign.
Leos link has the answer, the red match found error is simply an error between your finger prints taken together and then done individually.
The Service rep also individually goes thru all the FPs to check if the FPs taken together match those done individually.
indyanguy
01-14 09:15 PM
Why dont we start an entrepreneur thread here on IV. I know it does not go in line with IV's goals, I can set up a forum real quick and we can get a group going there.
Sounds like a good idea to me. As far as I know, there are a lot of IV members showing interest in this topic.
Sounds like a good idea to me. As far as I know, there are a lot of IV members showing interest in this topic.
more...
roseball
10-17 07:55 PM
Hello,
I am on H1. I got laid off in March 2009 and have not got anything since then. So I dont have lot of amount in my W2 for this year I have my H1 extension (after 3 years) coming up next year (2010).
My employer advised me to run payroll taxes for rest of the year, so that we could get W2 which would be helpful for H1 extension.
I have following Questions - Is W2 required for H1 extension or would few pay checks suffice?
Thanks!
What is required for a H1 extension is a "JOB". You should try and get a job asap. Technically, you are accruing unlawful presence in the US since the day you are out of the job (unless you have a pending I-485). On top of that, what your employer is suggesting is illegal. Try to find a job asap and apply for H1 COE petition. You will be required to submit your latest paystubs though.
I am on H1. I got laid off in March 2009 and have not got anything since then. So I dont have lot of amount in my W2 for this year I have my H1 extension (after 3 years) coming up next year (2010).
My employer advised me to run payroll taxes for rest of the year, so that we could get W2 which would be helpful for H1 extension.
I have following Questions - Is W2 required for H1 extension or would few pay checks suffice?
Thanks!
What is required for a H1 extension is a "JOB". You should try and get a job asap. Technically, you are accruing unlawful presence in the US since the day you are out of the job (unless you have a pending I-485). On top of that, what your employer is suggesting is illegal. Try to find a job asap and apply for H1 COE petition. You will be required to submit your latest paystubs though.
santa123
10-06 08:41 PM
I just read about someone in San Fernando who killed his family and himself because he didn't have a job.
Please reach out to your friends in times of difficulty....the world is not going to end if you don't have a job OR if you there are delays in getting your GC..the world is a wonderful place and still full of opportunity - to add value, to help others etc...you may need to reach out to your friends for help to find your calling or the next opportunity....please don't be desperate....and please ask for help. we all have so many things to be happy and thankful for...
Cheers!!
Well said... the economy will rebound as time progresses. Let us hope and pray it happens quickly.
Please reach out to your friends in times of difficulty....the world is not going to end if you don't have a job OR if you there are delays in getting your GC..the world is a wonderful place and still full of opportunity - to add value, to help others etc...you may need to reach out to your friends for help to find your calling or the next opportunity....please don't be desperate....and please ask for help. we all have so many things to be happy and thankful for...
Cheers!!
Well said... the economy will rebound as time progresses. Let us hope and pray it happens quickly.
more...
GCHope2011
09-12 11:01 PM
Hi, I have a quite strange situation here:
I am from China. I have an approved EB2-NIW I-140 with priority date of 2/2008 and an EB1a 140 petition denied on 8/4/2010.
I filed an I-485 concurrently with my EB1a, along with EAD applications. I got my EAD on 11/2009 and used it to work already.
The strange part is, my I-485 case is still pending, even though my EB1a petition is denied. In fact, I received RFE for quality photos two weeks after my 140 was denied. I think this is a USCIS error because they think my 485 was linked to my EB2-NIW case.
Now, am I staying in the U.S. illegally even though technically my 485 petition is still pending?
Thanks for all you comments.
Yes, your inference is correct as your 485 (and therefore EAD, AP) is based on an I-140 petition that was denied.
Which means that all status and benefits that are based on the underlying I-140 petition become null and void.
You should definitely consult a lawyer to understand what options you have now.
I am from China. I have an approved EB2-NIW I-140 with priority date of 2/2008 and an EB1a 140 petition denied on 8/4/2010.
I filed an I-485 concurrently with my EB1a, along with EAD applications. I got my EAD on 11/2009 and used it to work already.
The strange part is, my I-485 case is still pending, even though my EB1a petition is denied. In fact, I received RFE for quality photos two weeks after my 140 was denied. I think this is a USCIS error because they think my 485 was linked to my EB2-NIW case.
Now, am I staying in the U.S. illegally even though technically my 485 petition is still pending?
Thanks for all you comments.
Yes, your inference is correct as your 485 (and therefore EAD, AP) is based on an I-140 petition that was denied.
Which means that all status and benefits that are based on the underlying I-140 petition become null and void.
You should definitely consult a lawyer to understand what options you have now.
sdrblr
10-28 11:11 AM
Was the threat or intimidation verbal or do you have any paper trail. This can go both ways as the company's have a right to protect their intellectual property and on the same was that non compete legal (meaning if you challenge that in the court, can the judge say yes this needs 5 years of non compete).
Take the non compete and any paper trail about the termination to an HR attorney ASAP. Also see whether any of your colleagues were impacted and go for a class action.
Hi Guys,
I am based out of NJ and was working for an imports company for more than 8 years. I have an approved I-140 with this company. This company wanted me to sign an overly broad non compete agreement which would be valid for 5 years after termination. I refused to sign this agreement and I was verbally threatened with dire consequences if I did not sign. They fired me yesterday for not signing it and also stated that they are canceling my H1. Would this be treated as wrongful termination? Is there any way that I can file a complaint with the DOL? Has the complaint to be filed thru an attorney or can I do it myself?
Good news is another company has already applied for my H1 transfer.
I will appreciate all suggestions and advices for which I thank you in advance.
Take the non compete and any paper trail about the termination to an HR attorney ASAP. Also see whether any of your colleagues were impacted and go for a class action.
Hi Guys,
I am based out of NJ and was working for an imports company for more than 8 years. I have an approved I-140 with this company. This company wanted me to sign an overly broad non compete agreement which would be valid for 5 years after termination. I refused to sign this agreement and I was verbally threatened with dire consequences if I did not sign. They fired me yesterday for not signing it and also stated that they are canceling my H1. Would this be treated as wrongful termination? Is there any way that I can file a complaint with the DOL? Has the complaint to be filed thru an attorney or can I do it myself?
Good news is another company has already applied for my H1 transfer.
I will appreciate all suggestions and advices for which I thank you in advance.
more...
transpass
08-04 11:17 AM
Hey, great example and at a good time.
....Now that PD is current for a large number of EB2s, you will see approvals coming randomly (not in order of PDs or RDs); largely due to inefficiency of USCIS. They simply dont have enough resources or mechanism to utilize current resources to deal with what they are dealing with. And so, we come across issues like these. It is unfortunate and sad that things at USCIS are running worse than any government office in third world countries....
May be we should suggest CIS that anyone of us at IV can VOLUNTEER for CIS so that they have more resources...
I think we can do a fantastic job in sorting the thousands of mail pieces according RD, PD, etc. In that way everyone will be happy...The immigrant community will be happy because now everything is in FIFO order and CIS will be happy because they cannot be blamed for approving cases haphazardly without following FIFO rule...:D
....Now that PD is current for a large number of EB2s, you will see approvals coming randomly (not in order of PDs or RDs); largely due to inefficiency of USCIS. They simply dont have enough resources or mechanism to utilize current resources to deal with what they are dealing with. And so, we come across issues like these. It is unfortunate and sad that things at USCIS are running worse than any government office in third world countries....
May be we should suggest CIS that anyone of us at IV can VOLUNTEER for CIS so that they have more resources...
I think we can do a fantastic job in sorting the thousands of mail pieces according RD, PD, etc. In that way everyone will be happy...The immigrant community will be happy because now everything is in FIFO order and CIS will be happy because they cannot be blamed for approving cases haphazardly without following FIFO rule...:D
uscis_prob
08-15 06:44 PM
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the response. I consulted attorney murthy, who advised me to file I-140 & I-485 again , explaining all the facts.
Attorney just put all the documents of denial, the MTR and the new I-140 application along with 485 with a cover letter that the denial was what we consider is erroroneous, so refiling with a copy of labor. I have to wait and see what happens.
Its rather a tense moment as I am on my 7th year extension.
Thanks for the response. I consulted attorney murthy, who advised me to file I-140 & I-485 again , explaining all the facts.
Attorney just put all the documents of denial, the MTR and the new I-140 application along with 485 with a cover letter that the denial was what we consider is erroroneous, so refiling with a copy of labor. I have to wait and see what happens.
Its rather a tense moment as I am on my 7th year extension.
rkp27
07-11 03:10 PM
Not every member here is a MAN (to be a Gentalman), some are women, do they not count? :)
Pople like you does not count :( ... only man and woman counts.. hope this helps you.
Pople like you does not count :( ... only man and woman counts.. hope this helps you.
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
shar533
05-22 11:21 PM
Mr Aggarwal, you might remember you gave me suggestion of going out of US for few days and then my employer can apply 2 I-129 applications simultanously.
Here was my case : I am on H-1B status since May 2005 and my 6 years expired on 12th May 2011. My employer applied for LC on 15th May 2010 which is still pending ( under audit ). In order for us to seek 7th year extension, I went out of US for 4 days and came back bcz I have to be in status on the day my labor was going to be 365 days pending. My employer filed two I-129 applications, ( both applications under normal processing) one for seeing 4 days to recoup, and 2nd application for 7th year extension But USCIS sent 2nd application back alongwith fee and gave us only 1 file number. Why is that?
Is it because they can accept only 1 application at a time( for 4 days extension) and wont entertain 2nd application unless 1st has been decided?
Or .. Are they going to do processing for whole 1 year and 4 months in same application and returned the extra fee of 2nd application?
I am confused now, because what if they are processing only 1st application and give me just 4 day extension after 2 months. Also, shall my employer be able to file 2nd application after 2 months when I am out of status ?
Please help .
Here was my case : I am on H-1B status since May 2005 and my 6 years expired on 12th May 2011. My employer applied for LC on 15th May 2010 which is still pending ( under audit ). In order for us to seek 7th year extension, I went out of US for 4 days and came back bcz I have to be in status on the day my labor was going to be 365 days pending. My employer filed two I-129 applications, ( both applications under normal processing) one for seeing 4 days to recoup, and 2nd application for 7th year extension But USCIS sent 2nd application back alongwith fee and gave us only 1 file number. Why is that?
Is it because they can accept only 1 application at a time( for 4 days extension) and wont entertain 2nd application unless 1st has been decided?
Or .. Are they going to do processing for whole 1 year and 4 months in same application and returned the extra fee of 2nd application?
I am confused now, because what if they are processing only 1st application and give me just 4 day extension after 2 months. Also, shall my employer be able to file 2nd application after 2 months when I am out of status ?
Please help .
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario