prolegalimmi
03-27 03:11 PM
If someone has a good flow of the English Language, we can write a letter to the editor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0327/p01s03-uspo.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0327/p01s03-uspo.html
wallpaper Bow Down To The King Triple H
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
like_watching_paint_dry
07-13 09:56 PM
Regardless of the nature of the outcome from USCIS, I think we should all take 5-10 minutes out of our busy lives and all the "predicting" and dash off a quick note of thanks to Congresswoman Lofgren for taking our cause to heart and using her position to ask the right questions that has led USCIS to consider some action to alleviate the pain they caused us by creating this mess. I figured we could show our appreciation for what she did to help us out.
Just a thought.....
Just a thought.....
2011 Posted in Triple H
adibhatla
02-15 06:24 PM
Prince - If you ask me it doesn't matter coz ur back to the processing of your I-485. I heard some cases usually take longer to update.
Can you pls furnish specific details such as:
Denial notice Date:
When did you/your lawyer apply the MTR:
Other update dates such as (Soft LUD's, Hard LUD's):
MTR Approval Date:
Sorry for asking more specific details. My I-485 got denied too but for missing G-325A forms on both my wife's and my case.
Can you pls furnish specific details such as:
Denial notice Date:
When did you/your lawyer apply the MTR:
Other update dates such as (Soft LUD's, Hard LUD's):
MTR Approval Date:
Sorry for asking more specific details. My I-485 got denied too but for missing G-325A forms on both my wife's and my case.
more...
pbojja
04-23 10:52 AM
My case transfer status clearly indicated that it was transfered to TSC.
purgan
10-14 08:17 PM
Another recent story on Canadian Skilled Immigration...
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=752a2097-a21f-42d1-b9c4-d15bab949d9f&k=9534
Geoffrey Scotton, Calgary Herald
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
gscotton@theherald.canwest.com
CALGARY - Alberta and the rest of Canada need to move quickly to boost immigration and take better advantage of skills so many new Canadians bring to their chosen home or risk being left behind in a global race for talent, says the head of Canada's largest bank.
''We must significantly increase these efforts and others if Canada is going to have the necessary human resources to compete in today's global economy,'' Royal Bank of Canada president/chief executive Gordon Nixon said to a dinner of the Immigrant Access Fund in Calgary Tuesday evening.
''Make no mistake, Canada is in a global war for talent. We must be a destination of choice for skilled immigrants and professionals or we will not succeed ... If we do, we will have a unrivaled advantage. If we don't, we will face an uphill battle just to maintain our quality of life.''
David Baxter, a demographer and economist with the Vancouver-based Urban Futures Institute Society, agrees with Nixon's analysis, suggesting Canada faces a ''perfect storm'' of demographic labour force pressures. Those factors include a declining birthrate, a massive number of Canadians approaching retirement and relatively fewer Canadians entering the workforce as they reach working age.
''You don't need a robust economy to be able to say there's going to be a problem here. We're probably now at the point now that without immigration our labour force stops growing,'' he said. ''This is a long-term issue, let's regularize it. We've got to move away from this talk of temporary (workers).
''What I would look for is young, healthy, intelligent, honest energetic people, preferably with an entrepreneurial spirit - and more employee sponsorship.''
Nixon argued that nowhere is the potential of immigrant expertise and contribution more evident than in Calgary, which is suffering labour shortages across the board, in all industries, from the unskilled worker to the skilled professional.
''Calgary is facing a shortfall of as many as 90,000 workers over the next five years ... by 2025 the shortage across the province will be well through 300,000,'' said Nixon. ''Alberta is at the cusp of a trend we're seeing nationwide.''
Nixon argued that immigration must be viewed by policymakers as a strategic economic development tool that will help to define 21st century Canada. He noted the country has in the past used immigration as a tool of industrial policy, particularly around the settlement and development of the West.
That kind of approach is needed again, Nixon asserted, as is better utilization of under-employed immigrants already in Canada, a phenomenon that RBC economists has estimated costs Canada $13 billion annually.
''We can no longer view immigration as a temporary employment agency,'' said Nixon. ''We need to start looking at immigration as a blueprint for nation-building, and we must find the right balance between social justice and economic need.''
Baxter believes that Alberta is making the strongest effort of any of the Canadian provinces to attract and efficaciously absorb new Canadians. However, he noted that while immigration policy remains largely the purview of the federal government, questions of professional accreditation and other determinants limiting immigrants' entry into the Canadian workforce rest in provincial hands.
''Alberta is at the forefront of this. The provincial government recognizes this (the need for more workers) and so does industry,'' said Baxter, referring to Alberta's Labour Force Strategy, released in July.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=752a2097-a21f-42d1-b9c4-d15bab949d9f&k=9534
Geoffrey Scotton, Calgary Herald
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
gscotton@theherald.canwest.com
CALGARY - Alberta and the rest of Canada need to move quickly to boost immigration and take better advantage of skills so many new Canadians bring to their chosen home or risk being left behind in a global race for talent, says the head of Canada's largest bank.
''We must significantly increase these efforts and others if Canada is going to have the necessary human resources to compete in today's global economy,'' Royal Bank of Canada president/chief executive Gordon Nixon said to a dinner of the Immigrant Access Fund in Calgary Tuesday evening.
''Make no mistake, Canada is in a global war for talent. We must be a destination of choice for skilled immigrants and professionals or we will not succeed ... If we do, we will have a unrivaled advantage. If we don't, we will face an uphill battle just to maintain our quality of life.''
David Baxter, a demographer and economist with the Vancouver-based Urban Futures Institute Society, agrees with Nixon's analysis, suggesting Canada faces a ''perfect storm'' of demographic labour force pressures. Those factors include a declining birthrate, a massive number of Canadians approaching retirement and relatively fewer Canadians entering the workforce as they reach working age.
''You don't need a robust economy to be able to say there's going to be a problem here. We're probably now at the point now that without immigration our labour force stops growing,'' he said. ''This is a long-term issue, let's regularize it. We've got to move away from this talk of temporary (workers).
''What I would look for is young, healthy, intelligent, honest energetic people, preferably with an entrepreneurial spirit - and more employee sponsorship.''
Nixon argued that nowhere is the potential of immigrant expertise and contribution more evident than in Calgary, which is suffering labour shortages across the board, in all industries, from the unskilled worker to the skilled professional.
''Calgary is facing a shortfall of as many as 90,000 workers over the next five years ... by 2025 the shortage across the province will be well through 300,000,'' said Nixon. ''Alberta is at the cusp of a trend we're seeing nationwide.''
Nixon argued that immigration must be viewed by policymakers as a strategic economic development tool that will help to define 21st century Canada. He noted the country has in the past used immigration as a tool of industrial policy, particularly around the settlement and development of the West.
That kind of approach is needed again, Nixon asserted, as is better utilization of under-employed immigrants already in Canada, a phenomenon that RBC economists has estimated costs Canada $13 billion annually.
''We can no longer view immigration as a temporary employment agency,'' said Nixon. ''We need to start looking at immigration as a blueprint for nation-building, and we must find the right balance between social justice and economic need.''
Baxter believes that Alberta is making the strongest effort of any of the Canadian provinces to attract and efficaciously absorb new Canadians. However, he noted that while immigration policy remains largely the purview of the federal government, questions of professional accreditation and other determinants limiting immigrants' entry into the Canadian workforce rest in provincial hands.
''Alberta is at the forefront of this. The provincial government recognizes this (the need for more workers) and so does industry,'' said Baxter, referring to Alberta's Labour Force Strategy, released in July.
more...
vin13
07-27 02:12 PM
I need your input.
My PD was Feb 2006-EB2.
I changed job on June 22nd to another company using EAD. Now the PD has become current for Aug.My old company and the new company are in different cities but it is the same state.
I was planning to apply for AC-21 but i have not gotten consistent pay checks yet. My first check was a partial check. I will have 2 consistent paychecks by Aug 15th.
1) Is it safe to just wait and see if i get a 485 approval without alerting USCIS about my job change?
I am thinking since the job change is very recent they might not know about this job change.
2) If they denied my 485 application for any reason ,can i continue to work while i apply for "reconsidering my 485 application" and file AC-21 with the new company?
Please advice what you think about this. Basically i am trying to "not rock the boat" and raise suspicion and more RFEs by notifying them about this very recent change.
Thank you very much for your advice and help in this matter.
You are not obligated to inform USCIS about job change. So do not worry about that part.
My PD was Feb 2006-EB2.
I changed job on June 22nd to another company using EAD. Now the PD has become current for Aug.My old company and the new company are in different cities but it is the same state.
I was planning to apply for AC-21 but i have not gotten consistent pay checks yet. My first check was a partial check. I will have 2 consistent paychecks by Aug 15th.
1) Is it safe to just wait and see if i get a 485 approval without alerting USCIS about my job change?
I am thinking since the job change is very recent they might not know about this job change.
2) If they denied my 485 application for any reason ,can i continue to work while i apply for "reconsidering my 485 application" and file AC-21 with the new company?
Please advice what you think about this. Basically i am trying to "not rock the boat" and raise suspicion and more RFEs by notifying them about this very recent change.
Thank you very much for your advice and help in this matter.
You are not obligated to inform USCIS about job change. So do not worry about that part.
2010 Triple H desktop wallpaper
paskal
03-03 11:17 AM
http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1204158463&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1
more...
sachuin23
03-19 02:20 PM
Mine was filed in Jan and still waiting :).....
hair Triple H Biography | Triple H
WaitingYaar
01-18 08:54 PM
which category?
more...
dilipb
02-07 04:56 PM
Seriously speaking I still am not convinced....
Can someone ellaborate on this more?
Thanks...
Can someone ellaborate on this more?
Thanks...
hot triple-h wallpapers
ARUNRAMANATHAN
06-18 10:02 AM
So PERM does this have more than one processing center .....
Atlanta and
??????
Now if more than one processing center then do you know the list of states that fall under each processing center .
This is for ALL Guys who planning to Start the GC process ASAP.
Thanks
Atlanta and
??????
Now if more than one processing center then do you know the list of states that fall under each processing center .
This is for ALL Guys who planning to Start the GC process ASAP.
Thanks
more...
house WrestlemaniaTriple H Desktop
FOR_LIBERTY
11-13 10:59 AM
Folks,
I have recently moved to Houston. Count me in as a member of Texas chapter.
I have recently moved to Houston. Count me in as a member of Texas chapter.
tattoo WWE RAW Triple H John Cena
alterego
03-16 12:59 AM
What I understood from Ron's article:
They're not processing fast enough to exhaust visa numbers.
They want to minimize visa number wastage.
They may move dates significantly forward so that they can approve low-hanging fruits to approve as many as possible
Many people will have dates current, but few will get approved... it'll be luck of draw.
Dates will then return to retrogressed levels at the beginning of the next financial year.
However, overall visa number wastage should be much smaller than previous years as they have started moving the dates forward much sooner this time.Disclaimer: This is my interpretation of Ron's post. These are not my predictions.
Personally, I'm Pessimistic... being in India-EB3, that's not a state of mind... it's a lifestyle.
Well put together summary!
They're not processing fast enough to exhaust visa numbers.
They want to minimize visa number wastage.
They may move dates significantly forward so that they can approve low-hanging fruits to approve as many as possible
Many people will have dates current, but few will get approved... it'll be luck of draw.
Dates will then return to retrogressed levels at the beginning of the next financial year.
However, overall visa number wastage should be much smaller than previous years as they have started moving the dates forward much sooner this time.Disclaimer: This is my interpretation of Ron's post. These are not my predictions.
Personally, I'm Pessimistic... being in India-EB3, that's not a state of mind... it's a lifestyle.
Well put together summary!
more...
pictures Triple H - Triple H Wallpaper
angelic
February 26th, 2004, 11:06 PM
You might try applying a mild black vignetting to direct the eyes to the flower