purgan
01-22 11:35 AM
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5585.html
The Immigrant Technologist:
Studying Technology Transfer with China
Q&A with: William Kerr and Michael Roberts
Published: January 22, 2007
Author: Michael Roberts
Executive Summary:
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain? Professor William Kerr discusses the phenomena of technology transfer and implications for U.S.-based businesses and policymakers.
The trend of Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs staying home rather than moving to the United States is a trend that potentially offers both harm and opportunity to U.S.-based interests.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S. and are strong contributors to American technology development. It is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group.
U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries, around 15 percent today. U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain?
Q: Describe your research and how it relates to what you observed in China.
A: My research focuses on technology transfer through ethnic scientific and entrepreneurial networks. Traditional models of technology diffusion suggest that if you have a great idea, people who are ten feet away from you will learn about that idea first, followed by people who are 100 miles away, and so forth in concentric circles. My research on ethnic networks suggests this channel facilitates faster knowledge transfer and faster adoption of foreign technologies. For example, if the Chinese have a strong presence in the U.S. computer industry, relative to other ethnic groups, then computer technologies diffuse faster to China than elsewhere. This is true even for computer advances made by Americans, as the U.S.-based Chinese increase awareness and tacit knowledge development regarding these advances in their home country.
Q: Is your research relevant to other countries as well?
China is at a tipping point for entrepreneurship on an international scale.A: Yes, I have extended my empirical work to include over thirty industries and nine ethnicities, including Indian, Japanese, Korean, and Hispanic. It is very important to develop a broad sample to quantify correctly the overall importance of these networks. The Silicon Valley Chinese are a very special case, and my work seeks to understand the larger benefit these networks provide throughout the global economy. These macroeconomic findings are important inputs to business and policy circles.
Q: What makes technology transfer happen? Is it entrepreneurial opportunity in the home country, a loyalty to the home country, or government policies that encourage or require people to come home?
A: It's all of those. Surveys of these diasporic communities suggest they aid their home countries through both formal business relationships and informal contacts. Formal mechanisms run the spectrum from direct financial investment in overseas businesses that pursue technology opportunities to facilitating contracts and market awareness. Informal contacts are more frequent�the evidence we have suggests they are at least twice as common�and even more diverse in nature. Ongoing research will allow us to better distinguish these channels. A Beijing scholar we met on the trip, Henry Wang, and I are currently surveying a large population of Chinese entrepreneurs to paint a more comprehensive picture of the micro-underpinnings of this phenomena.
Q: What about multinational corporations? How do they fit into this scenario?
A: One of the strongest trends of globalization is that U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries. About 5 percent of U.S.-sponsored R&D was done in foreign countries in the 1980s, and that number is around 15 percent today. We visited Microsoft's R&D center in Beijing to learn more about its R&D efforts and interactions with the U.S. parent. This facility was founded in the late 1990s, and it has already grown to house a third of Microsoft's basic-science R&D researchers. More broadly, HBS assistant professor Fritz Foley and I are working on a research project that has found that U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals like Microsoft help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Q: Does your research have implications for U.S. policy?
A: One implication concerns immigration levels. It is interesting to note that while immigrants account for about 15 percent of the U.S. working population, they account for almost half of our Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers. Even within the Ph.D. ranks, foreign-born individuals have a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, elections to the National Academy of Sciences, patent citations, and so forth. They are a very strong contributor to U.S. technology development, so it is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group. It is one of the easiest policy levers we have to influence our nation's rate of innovation.
Q: Are countries that send their scholars to the United States losing their best and brightest?
A: My research shows that having these immigrant scientists, entrepreneurs, and engineers in the United States helps facilitate faster technology transfer from the United States, which in turn aids economic growth and development. This is certainly a positive benefit diasporas bring to their home countries. It is important to note, however, that a number of factors should be considered in the "brain drain" versus "brain gain" debate, for which I do not think there is a clear answer today.
Q: Where does China stand in relation to some of the classic tiger economies that we've seen in the past in terms of technology transfer?
A: Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and similar smaller economies have achieved a full transition from agriculture-based economies to industrialized economies. In those situations, technology transfer increases labor productivity and wages directly. The interesting thing about China and also India is that about half of their populations are still employed in the agricultural sector. In this scenario, technology transfer may lead to faster sector reallocation�workers moving from agriculture to industry�which can weaken wage growth compared with the classic tiger economy example. This is an interesting dynamic we see in China today.
Q: The export growth that technology may engender is only one prong of the mechanism that helps economic development. Does technology also make purely domestic industries more productive?
A: Absolutely. My research shows that countries do increase their exports in industries that receive large technology infusions, but non-exporting industries also benefit from technology gains. Moreover, the technology transfer can raise wages in sectors that do not rely on technology to the extent there is labor mobility across sectors. A hairdresser in the United States, for example, makes more money than a hairdresser in China, and that is due in large part to the wage equilibrium that occurs across occupations and skill categories within an economy. Technology transfer may alter the wage premiums assigned to certain skill sets, for example, increasing the wage gaps between skilled and unskilled workers, but the wage shifts can feed across sectors through labor mobility.
Q: What are the implications for the future?
A: Historically, the United States has been very successful at the retention of foreign-born, Ph.D.-level scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs. As China and India continue to develop, they will become more attractive places to live and to start companies. The returnee pattern may accelerate as foreign infrastructures become more developed for entrepreneurship. This is not going to happen over the next three years, but it is quite likely over the next thirty to fifty years. My current research is exploring how this reverse migration would impact the United States' rate of progress.
About the author
Michael Roberts is a senior lecturer in the Entrepreneurial Management unit at Harvard Business School.
The Immigrant Technologist:
Studying Technology Transfer with China
Q&A with: William Kerr and Michael Roberts
Published: January 22, 2007
Author: Michael Roberts
Executive Summary:
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain? Professor William Kerr discusses the phenomena of technology transfer and implications for U.S.-based businesses and policymakers.
The trend of Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs staying home rather than moving to the United States is a trend that potentially offers both harm and opportunity to U.S.-based interests.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S. and are strong contributors to American technology development. It is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group.
U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries, around 15 percent today. U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain?
Q: Describe your research and how it relates to what you observed in China.
A: My research focuses on technology transfer through ethnic scientific and entrepreneurial networks. Traditional models of technology diffusion suggest that if you have a great idea, people who are ten feet away from you will learn about that idea first, followed by people who are 100 miles away, and so forth in concentric circles. My research on ethnic networks suggests this channel facilitates faster knowledge transfer and faster adoption of foreign technologies. For example, if the Chinese have a strong presence in the U.S. computer industry, relative to other ethnic groups, then computer technologies diffuse faster to China than elsewhere. This is true even for computer advances made by Americans, as the U.S.-based Chinese increase awareness and tacit knowledge development regarding these advances in their home country.
Q: Is your research relevant to other countries as well?
China is at a tipping point for entrepreneurship on an international scale.A: Yes, I have extended my empirical work to include over thirty industries and nine ethnicities, including Indian, Japanese, Korean, and Hispanic. It is very important to develop a broad sample to quantify correctly the overall importance of these networks. The Silicon Valley Chinese are a very special case, and my work seeks to understand the larger benefit these networks provide throughout the global economy. These macroeconomic findings are important inputs to business and policy circles.
Q: What makes technology transfer happen? Is it entrepreneurial opportunity in the home country, a loyalty to the home country, or government policies that encourage or require people to come home?
A: It's all of those. Surveys of these diasporic communities suggest they aid their home countries through both formal business relationships and informal contacts. Formal mechanisms run the spectrum from direct financial investment in overseas businesses that pursue technology opportunities to facilitating contracts and market awareness. Informal contacts are more frequent�the evidence we have suggests they are at least twice as common�and even more diverse in nature. Ongoing research will allow us to better distinguish these channels. A Beijing scholar we met on the trip, Henry Wang, and I are currently surveying a large population of Chinese entrepreneurs to paint a more comprehensive picture of the micro-underpinnings of this phenomena.
Q: What about multinational corporations? How do they fit into this scenario?
A: One of the strongest trends of globalization is that U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries. About 5 percent of U.S.-sponsored R&D was done in foreign countries in the 1980s, and that number is around 15 percent today. We visited Microsoft's R&D center in Beijing to learn more about its R&D efforts and interactions with the U.S. parent. This facility was founded in the late 1990s, and it has already grown to house a third of Microsoft's basic-science R&D researchers. More broadly, HBS assistant professor Fritz Foley and I are working on a research project that has found that U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals like Microsoft help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Q: Does your research have implications for U.S. policy?
A: One implication concerns immigration levels. It is interesting to note that while immigrants account for about 15 percent of the U.S. working population, they account for almost half of our Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers. Even within the Ph.D. ranks, foreign-born individuals have a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, elections to the National Academy of Sciences, patent citations, and so forth. They are a very strong contributor to U.S. technology development, so it is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group. It is one of the easiest policy levers we have to influence our nation's rate of innovation.
Q: Are countries that send their scholars to the United States losing their best and brightest?
A: My research shows that having these immigrant scientists, entrepreneurs, and engineers in the United States helps facilitate faster technology transfer from the United States, which in turn aids economic growth and development. This is certainly a positive benefit diasporas bring to their home countries. It is important to note, however, that a number of factors should be considered in the "brain drain" versus "brain gain" debate, for which I do not think there is a clear answer today.
Q: Where does China stand in relation to some of the classic tiger economies that we've seen in the past in terms of technology transfer?
A: Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and similar smaller economies have achieved a full transition from agriculture-based economies to industrialized economies. In those situations, technology transfer increases labor productivity and wages directly. The interesting thing about China and also India is that about half of their populations are still employed in the agricultural sector. In this scenario, technology transfer may lead to faster sector reallocation�workers moving from agriculture to industry�which can weaken wage growth compared with the classic tiger economy example. This is an interesting dynamic we see in China today.
Q: The export growth that technology may engender is only one prong of the mechanism that helps economic development. Does technology also make purely domestic industries more productive?
A: Absolutely. My research shows that countries do increase their exports in industries that receive large technology infusions, but non-exporting industries also benefit from technology gains. Moreover, the technology transfer can raise wages in sectors that do not rely on technology to the extent there is labor mobility across sectors. A hairdresser in the United States, for example, makes more money than a hairdresser in China, and that is due in large part to the wage equilibrium that occurs across occupations and skill categories within an economy. Technology transfer may alter the wage premiums assigned to certain skill sets, for example, increasing the wage gaps between skilled and unskilled workers, but the wage shifts can feed across sectors through labor mobility.
Q: What are the implications for the future?
A: Historically, the United States has been very successful at the retention of foreign-born, Ph.D.-level scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs. As China and India continue to develop, they will become more attractive places to live and to start companies. The returnee pattern may accelerate as foreign infrastructures become more developed for entrepreneurship. This is not going to happen over the next three years, but it is quite likely over the next thirty to fifty years. My current research is exploring how this reverse migration would impact the United States' rate of progress.
About the author
Michael Roberts is a senior lecturer in the Entrepreneurial Management unit at Harvard Business School.
wallpaper Wolves, Anime Wolves
baleraosreedhar
01-08 03:11 PM
it was in 2006 quota, got her h1 approval document in november, applied in november second week and by dec 2 week got her ssn.
She was on h4 for the past 3 years and converted to H1 in december officially( as she got her SSN)
She was on h4 for the past 3 years and converted to H1 in december officially( as she got her SSN)
xu1
09-12 07:08 PM
-----------
I am not very sure about this, but I would assume if you are not working and not getting paid, you are out of status.
You have to be on a payroll to maintain your status.
This needs probably more insight..
I don't think that was necessarily true.. An H1b woman on maternity leave, even if unpaid, is legal in status. At least that's what the lawyer advised my wife.
Please ask your (company's) lawyear..
I am not very sure about this, but I would assume if you are not working and not getting paid, you are out of status.
You have to be on a payroll to maintain your status.
This needs probably more insight..
I don't think that was necessarily true.. An H1b woman on maternity leave, even if unpaid, is legal in status. At least that's what the lawyer advised my wife.
Please ask your (company's) lawyear..
2011 anime wolves with wings. Anime Wolves With Wings. Anime Wolves With Wings.
dhesha
08-29 02:46 PM
So if the date is July 2, what does it mean? Does it mean they are processing cases that are received on July 2 or those who have Notice date of July 2?
Is July 2 included or excluded?
Is July 2 included or excluded?
more...
dpp
01-07 08:25 PM
B. Provisions in Cases of Revocation of the Approved Form I-140
Subject: Guidance for Processing Form I-485 in Accordance with Section 106(c) of AC21
As discussed above, if an alien is the beneficiary of an approved Form I-140 and is also the beneficiary of a Form I-485 that has been pending 180 days or longer, then the approved Form I-140 remains valid with respect to a new offer of employment under the flexibility provisions of �106(c) of AC21.
Accordingly, if the employer withdraws the approved Form I-140 on or after the date that the Form I-485 has been pending 180 days, the approved Form I-140 shall remain valid under the provisions of �106(c) of AC21. It is expected that the alien will have submitted evidence to the office having jurisdiction over the pending Form I-485 that the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupational classification as the offer of employment for which the petition was filed. Accordingly, if the underlying approved Form I-140 is withdrawn, and the alien has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the adjudicating officer must issue a Notice of Intent to Deny the pending Form I-485. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16)(i). If the evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment submitted in response to the Notice of Intent to Deny is timely filed and it appears that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, the BCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485. If the applicant responds to the Notice of Intent to Deny, but has not established that the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupation, the adjudicating officer may immediately deny the Form I-485. If the alien does not respond or fails to timely respond to the Notice of Intent to Deny, the adjudicating officer may immediately deny the Form I-485.
If approval of the Form I-140 is revoked or the Form I-140 is withdrawn before the alien’s Form I-485 has been pending 180 days, the approved Form I-140 is no longer valid with respect to a new offer of employment and the Form I-485 may be denied. If at any time the BCIS revokes approval of the Form I-140 based on fraud, the alien will not be eligible for the job flexibility provisions of �106(c) of AC21 and the adjudicating officer may, in his or her discretion, deny the attached Form I-485 immediately. In all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide, and the employer must have had the intent, at the time the Form I-140 was approved, to employ the beneficiary upon adjustment. It should be noted that there is no requirement in statute or regulations that a beneficiary of a Form I-140 actually be in the underlying employment until permanent residence is authorized. Therefore, it is possible for an alien to qualify for the provisions of �106(c) of AC21 even if he or she has never been employed by the prior petitioning employer or the subsequent employer under section 204(j) of the Act.
Subject: Guidance for Processing Form I-485 in Accordance with Section 106(c) of AC21
As discussed above, if an alien is the beneficiary of an approved Form I-140 and is also the beneficiary of a Form I-485 that has been pending 180 days or longer, then the approved Form I-140 remains valid with respect to a new offer of employment under the flexibility provisions of �106(c) of AC21.
Accordingly, if the employer withdraws the approved Form I-140 on or after the date that the Form I-485 has been pending 180 days, the approved Form I-140 shall remain valid under the provisions of �106(c) of AC21. It is expected that the alien will have submitted evidence to the office having jurisdiction over the pending Form I-485 that the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupational classification as the offer of employment for which the petition was filed. Accordingly, if the underlying approved Form I-140 is withdrawn, and the alien has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the adjudicating officer must issue a Notice of Intent to Deny the pending Form I-485. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16)(i). If the evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment submitted in response to the Notice of Intent to Deny is timely filed and it appears that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, the BCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485. If the applicant responds to the Notice of Intent to Deny, but has not established that the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupation, the adjudicating officer may immediately deny the Form I-485. If the alien does not respond or fails to timely respond to the Notice of Intent to Deny, the adjudicating officer may immediately deny the Form I-485.
If approval of the Form I-140 is revoked or the Form I-140 is withdrawn before the alien’s Form I-485 has been pending 180 days, the approved Form I-140 is no longer valid with respect to a new offer of employment and the Form I-485 may be denied. If at any time the BCIS revokes approval of the Form I-140 based on fraud, the alien will not be eligible for the job flexibility provisions of �106(c) of AC21 and the adjudicating officer may, in his or her discretion, deny the attached Form I-485 immediately. In all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide, and the employer must have had the intent, at the time the Form I-140 was approved, to employ the beneficiary upon adjustment. It should be noted that there is no requirement in statute or regulations that a beneficiary of a Form I-140 actually be in the underlying employment until permanent residence is authorized. Therefore, it is possible for an alien to qualify for the provisions of �106(c) of AC21 even if he or she has never been employed by the prior petitioning employer or the subsequent employer under section 204(j) of the Act.
kumar1
02-01 01:06 PM
Start doing AmWay or QuickStar. That is the best thing a person can do !!!!!!
more...
ramaa
06-21 11:00 PM
Thank you for reply.
Can I request to port 2003 PD at the time of filing 2nd I-140
or
Should I first get 2nd I-140 approved with new 2007 PD and then try to port old 2003 PD while filing for I-485.
Job description, salary does not matter in porting PD. Is there any possible reason CIS may not port the PD though old I-140 is not revoked by employer.
I appreciate your input.
Thanks
Can I request to port 2003 PD at the time of filing 2nd I-140
or
Should I first get 2nd I-140 approved with new 2007 PD and then try to port old 2003 PD while filing for I-485.
Job description, salary does not matter in porting PD. Is there any possible reason CIS may not port the PD though old I-140 is not revoked by employer.
I appreciate your input.
Thanks
2010 black anime wolf with wings.
buehler
09-08 12:40 PM
There is one way in which this service might be making money. Every time you make a call, your phone company has to give a small amount of money to the receiving party's phone company. Freecall2india might have an understanding with their telephone service provider to give them a portion of this money. There are plenty of companies that provide free conference call facilities and they use this business model and have been viable for quite a while.
Given that a call to India is costlier than providing a conference call facility, will FreeCall2India make enough money from this business model? That is the million dollar question.
Given that a call to India is costlier than providing a conference call facility, will FreeCall2India make enough money from this business model? That is the million dollar question.
more...
ebizash
08-25 02:17 PM
poorslumdog,
I do appologize. I have made some donations today, will be making in the future.
i will be more active in the posts and compaigns.
will you please encourage others to respond to my questions?
Thanks for giving me a wake -up call.
Greencardfever5, first of all I don't think you needed to apologize. Everyone has their own schedules and priorities, and just because you did not spend enough time on IV, does not mean you are not welcome here.
Now to your question - I was in similar situation last year , may be even more complicated than yours. First I got promoted (developer to Architect) in my GC sponsoring company in 2007 and then in 2008, I changed employer and took another promotion (Architect to Manager). In the first case, my GC employer filed an amended H1-B and in the second case, I used EAD to switch employer.
I got RFE last month for employment verification letter. My current employer responded with my current position, salary (more than 50% higher than LCA), and job responsibilities. The USCIS accepted that response and my case has resumed processing. So if I were you, I would have no problem taking the Engineering Manager title.
Hope this helps.
I do appologize. I have made some donations today, will be making in the future.
i will be more active in the posts and compaigns.
will you please encourage others to respond to my questions?
Thanks for giving me a wake -up call.
Greencardfever5, first of all I don't think you needed to apologize. Everyone has their own schedules and priorities, and just because you did not spend enough time on IV, does not mean you are not welcome here.
Now to your question - I was in similar situation last year , may be even more complicated than yours. First I got promoted (developer to Architect) in my GC sponsoring company in 2007 and then in 2008, I changed employer and took another promotion (Architect to Manager). In the first case, my GC employer filed an amended H1-B and in the second case, I used EAD to switch employer.
I got RFE last month for employment verification letter. My current employer responded with my current position, salary (more than 50% higher than LCA), and job responsibilities. The USCIS accepted that response and my case has resumed processing. So if I were you, I would have no problem taking the Engineering Manager title.
Hope this helps.
hair ThE WiNgS oF thE DeViL
dan19
10-08 11:14 AM
Hi..
Sorry to hear about that. My opinion is that you are safe as long as your company doesn't withdraw/request to revoke you I-140.
>>>>>My questions are the following:
1. What is USCIS view when they see the new H1B transfer petition? Will they reject my I-485?
>> No. Because I-485 is filed for a future employment.
2. If I take a job with Company B, starting Nov 17, can I use AC21 and send in the letter after January 15 (180 days pending).
>> You don't have to sent any letters. Only thing you need to make sure is that you current company doesn't revoke your I-140 before Jan 15. If USCIS asks you for an updated employment letter before Jan 15, you will be in trouble (normally they wont do). If they ask after Jan 15, you can provide it from the new company.
3. Do I have any other options here (I dont have EAD yet, just applied last week)
Once you get EAD and Jan 15 comes, inform your new company that you are using EAD for AC21 purpose. From that time, they need to support your I-485.
Again, again, again...I am not an attorney. So consult an attorney before making any decisions.
Sorry to hear about that. My opinion is that you are safe as long as your company doesn't withdraw/request to revoke you I-140.
>>>>>My questions are the following:
1. What is USCIS view when they see the new H1B transfer petition? Will they reject my I-485?
>> No. Because I-485 is filed for a future employment.
2. If I take a job with Company B, starting Nov 17, can I use AC21 and send in the letter after January 15 (180 days pending).
>> You don't have to sent any letters. Only thing you need to make sure is that you current company doesn't revoke your I-140 before Jan 15. If USCIS asks you for an updated employment letter before Jan 15, you will be in trouble (normally they wont do). If they ask after Jan 15, you can provide it from the new company.
3. Do I have any other options here (I dont have EAD yet, just applied last week)
Once you get EAD and Jan 15 comes, inform your new company that you are using EAD for AC21 purpose. From that time, they need to support your I-485.
Again, again, again...I am not an attorney. So consult an attorney before making any decisions.
more...
Jaime
08-06 12:12 PM
Yeah, why not? As long as Legals ALSO get green cards!
On The Washington Post today:
A Less Ambitious Approach to Immigration
By Arlen Specter
Monday, August 6, 2007; Page A17
The charge of amnesty defeated comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate this summer. It is too important, and there has been too much legislative investment, not to try again. The time to do so is now.
Certainly the government should implement the provisions it has already enacted to improve border security and crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. But the important additions on those subjects contained in the bill defeated in June will not be enacted without also dealing with the 12 million-plus undocumented immigrants and the guest worker program.
So let's take a fresh look and try a narrower approach.
There is a consensus in Congress on most objectives and many remedies for immigration reform: more border patrols, additional fencing, drones and some form of a guest worker program. Modern technological advances provide foolproof identification so employers can -- justifiably -- be severely sanctioned if they don't verify IDs and act to eliminate the magnet attracting illegals to penetrate the border. Yet Congress is unlikely to appropriate $3 billion for border security without dealing simultaneously with the illegal immigrants already here.
The main objective in legalizing the 12 million was to eliminate their fugitive status, allowing them to live in the United States without fear of being detected and deported or being abused by unscrupulous employers. We should consider a revised status for those 12 million people. Let them hold the status of those with green cards -- without the automatic path to citizenship that was the core component of critics' argument that reform efforts were really amnesty. Give these people the company of their spouses and minor children and consider other indicators of citizenship short of the right to vote (which was always the dealbreaker).
This approach may be attacked as creating an "underclass" inconsistent with American values, which have always been to give refuge to the "huddled masses." But such a compromise is clearly better than leaving these people a fugitive class. People with a lesser status are frequently referred to as second-class citizens. Congress has adamantly refused to make the 12 million people already here full citizens, but isn't it better for them to at least be secure aliens than hunted and exploited?
Giving these people green-card status leaves open the opportunity for them to return to their native lands and seek citizenship through regular channels. Or, after our borders are secured and tough employer sanctions have been put in place, Congress can revisit the issue and possibly find a more hospitable America.
Some of the other refinements of the defeated bill can await another day and the regular process of Judiciary Committee hearings and markups. Changing the law on family unification with a point system can also be considered later. Now, perhaps, we could add green cards for highly skilled workers and tinker at the edges of immigration law, providing we don't get bogged down in endless debate and defeated cloture motions.
It would be refreshing if Congress, and the country, could come together in a bipartisan way to at least partially solve one of the big domestic issues of the day.
The writer, a senator from Pennsylvania, is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
On The Washington Post today:
A Less Ambitious Approach to Immigration
By Arlen Specter
Monday, August 6, 2007; Page A17
The charge of amnesty defeated comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate this summer. It is too important, and there has been too much legislative investment, not to try again. The time to do so is now.
Certainly the government should implement the provisions it has already enacted to improve border security and crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. But the important additions on those subjects contained in the bill defeated in June will not be enacted without also dealing with the 12 million-plus undocumented immigrants and the guest worker program.
So let's take a fresh look and try a narrower approach.
There is a consensus in Congress on most objectives and many remedies for immigration reform: more border patrols, additional fencing, drones and some form of a guest worker program. Modern technological advances provide foolproof identification so employers can -- justifiably -- be severely sanctioned if they don't verify IDs and act to eliminate the magnet attracting illegals to penetrate the border. Yet Congress is unlikely to appropriate $3 billion for border security without dealing simultaneously with the illegal immigrants already here.
The main objective in legalizing the 12 million was to eliminate their fugitive status, allowing them to live in the United States without fear of being detected and deported or being abused by unscrupulous employers. We should consider a revised status for those 12 million people. Let them hold the status of those with green cards -- without the automatic path to citizenship that was the core component of critics' argument that reform efforts were really amnesty. Give these people the company of their spouses and minor children and consider other indicators of citizenship short of the right to vote (which was always the dealbreaker).
This approach may be attacked as creating an "underclass" inconsistent with American values, which have always been to give refuge to the "huddled masses." But such a compromise is clearly better than leaving these people a fugitive class. People with a lesser status are frequently referred to as second-class citizens. Congress has adamantly refused to make the 12 million people already here full citizens, but isn't it better for them to at least be secure aliens than hunted and exploited?
Giving these people green-card status leaves open the opportunity for them to return to their native lands and seek citizenship through regular channels. Or, after our borders are secured and tough employer sanctions have been put in place, Congress can revisit the issue and possibly find a more hospitable America.
Some of the other refinements of the defeated bill can await another day and the regular process of Judiciary Committee hearings and markups. Changing the law on family unification with a point system can also be considered later. Now, perhaps, we could add green cards for highly skilled workers and tinker at the edges of immigration law, providing we don't get bogged down in endless debate and defeated cloture motions.
It would be refreshing if Congress, and the country, could come together in a bipartisan way to at least partially solve one of the big domestic issues of the day.
The writer, a senator from Pennsylvania, is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
hot anime wolves with wings. anime
sledge_hammer
07-16 08:33 AM
Hi,
Why would notification be necessary? Isn't an I-9 form (w/ EAD as proof of work permit) being present at the employer's location sufficient?
I haven't heard of any employer "notifying" USCIS about an employee's EAD status!
Thanks!
It is an error on USCIS part, may be because you (or your spouse's employer) have not notified the USCIS about your spouse using the EAD for employment.
Why would notification be necessary? Isn't an I-9 form (w/ EAD as proof of work permit) being present at the employer's location sufficient?
I haven't heard of any employer "notifying" USCIS about an employee's EAD status!
Thanks!
It is an error on USCIS part, may be because you (or your spouse's employer) have not notified the USCIS about your spouse using the EAD for employment.
more...
house Anime Wolf With Wings - Page 2
supers789
07-14 04:18 PM
huh! looks like either not many ppl received audits.. or not many received response back ??
tattoo anime wolves with wings. anime
adGurkha
01-17 12:28 PM
Thank you for your response,
I am thinking about using some agency like H&R block to get my taxes done becasue I am not familiar with the ITIN and all the other stuff related to filing Tax with H4 for the first time. The reason I was little heistant about this is sometimes these people who are filing the tax are not familiar with this process since they don't get that many cases like ours in which case they tend to make it more complicated than it is.
I am thinking about using some agency like H&R block to get my taxes done becasue I am not familiar with the ITIN and all the other stuff related to filing Tax with H4 for the first time. The reason I was little heistant about this is sometimes these people who are filing the tax are not familiar with this process since they don't get that many cases like ours in which case they tend to make it more complicated than it is.
more...
pictures wolf form. Narikara in her
gcseeker28
07-29 09:26 AM
Thank you gc_1000_waats, My attorney also suggested the same as you had mentioned.
So, what is the difference between filing MTR and re-filing after it is declined? Why can't everybody whose h-1 petition has been declined, re-file for H-1 rather than going through the tedious path of MTR?
So, what is the difference between filing MTR and re-filing after it is declined? Why can't everybody whose h-1 petition has been declined, re-file for H-1 rather than going through the tedious path of MTR?
dresses anime wolves with wings. anime
senthil1
07-26 10:04 AM
I am not sure about changing H4 to F1 as F1 is dual intent visa. I am sure mostly your wife's F1 will be rejected at Consulate as her spouse is staying here but I am not sure about changing status from H4
to F1 here.
If you accept that you are taking some risk then it is fine. Sometimes all the 4 options may work against you. Also if your wife comes here within a few months then it may be ok. But if it takes 1 year or more then your company Lawyer is correct. Take advise of second lawyer
Also I did not hear anything about option 2.That is mainly for those who were out of status for less than 6 months
Hello everyone,
I got to know about this website recently and I wish I had known it earlier.
Anyway, I need advice/conformation
I got married recently outside the US. However, I did not come back with my wife b/c of a couple of reasons. And I cannot bring her here in the next 3 weeks. (My H1B is getting renewed...)
The company's lawyer is advising me not file for I-485 and wait till I become current again and apply with my wife then. (I am EB3 and my PD is March 2005)
After reading this web and others, if I go ahead and apply now the following are the choices that I have later. Please confirm if I am right or wrong
1. Get every document ready for my wife at all times and apply for I-485 immediately after I become current. As long as they receive her I-485 before they approve mine, she is going to be fine. She will be fine even if they receive her I-485 a day before they approve mine.
2. If my I-485 gets approved before my wife’s I-485 get there, under section 245(k), she has 180 days to send in her I-485 as long as PD is current. And there is no penalty and no other problem with this. She can stay in the country and wait for her I-485 to approve.
3. If I though that it was a grave mistake to apply for my I-485, I can withdraw it before it gets approved and reapply later with my wife’s when I become current again. No problem with this other than paying the fees again.
4. My wife and change her H4 to F1 any time she wants to as long as she goes to school full time. She could be on F1 and apply for I-485 when I become current (I feel uneasy on this one).
Please, let me know if what I listed above is right. These are the only choices that I have ready about. If there are more choices please, let me know that too. I have to make a decision by the end of tomorrow. Thank you all!
to F1 here.
If you accept that you are taking some risk then it is fine. Sometimes all the 4 options may work against you. Also if your wife comes here within a few months then it may be ok. But if it takes 1 year or more then your company Lawyer is correct. Take advise of second lawyer
Also I did not hear anything about option 2.That is mainly for those who were out of status for less than 6 months
Hello everyone,
I got to know about this website recently and I wish I had known it earlier.
Anyway, I need advice/conformation
I got married recently outside the US. However, I did not come back with my wife b/c of a couple of reasons. And I cannot bring her here in the next 3 weeks. (My H1B is getting renewed...)
The company's lawyer is advising me not file for I-485 and wait till I become current again and apply with my wife then. (I am EB3 and my PD is March 2005)
After reading this web and others, if I go ahead and apply now the following are the choices that I have later. Please confirm if I am right or wrong
1. Get every document ready for my wife at all times and apply for I-485 immediately after I become current. As long as they receive her I-485 before they approve mine, she is going to be fine. She will be fine even if they receive her I-485 a day before they approve mine.
2. If my I-485 gets approved before my wife’s I-485 get there, under section 245(k), she has 180 days to send in her I-485 as long as PD is current. And there is no penalty and no other problem with this. She can stay in the country and wait for her I-485 to approve.
3. If I though that it was a grave mistake to apply for my I-485, I can withdraw it before it gets approved and reapply later with my wife’s when I become current again. No problem with this other than paying the fees again.
4. My wife and change her H4 to F1 any time she wants to as long as she goes to school full time. She could be on F1 and apply for I-485 when I become current (I feel uneasy on this one).
Please, let me know if what I listed above is right. These are the only choices that I have ready about. If there are more choices please, let me know that too. I have to make a decision by the end of tomorrow. Thank you all!
more...
makeup More from *BlackWolfWings
calgirl
08-07 09:14 PM
Infopass should be able to get you NC info. It just depends on the IO officer there.
I had Infopass appointment at San Jose yesterday and the IO officer was very sweet. She told me my NC status.
Nebraska is not actively processing India EB2 cases.
Texas - we have no idea what they are processing on .RD/ND//PD.. God knows.. Its random most probably.
Ideally, if NC has been pending for more than 6 months they should not from approving 485. Again this is luck. !!
Hope this helps..
I had an infopass appointment at San Francisco today to inquire about my name check. I am a July 2007 485 filer. PD March 2006, I140 - May 2006, 485 RD- July 27, 2007 and ND- Aug 27, 2007.
The agent said that they dont hold cases for name check any more since April 2008 and cannot tell what is the status of the name check. I also inquired about my 485 case and she said pointing to the Notice Date of my 485 not the Receipt DATE, that currently Nebraska is processing Aug 10th cases.
I wanted to know from you whether there is any other way to get the info about name check and whether the processing is based on Reciept date or notice date?
Any idea?
cheers
Sidharth
I had Infopass appointment at San Jose yesterday and the IO officer was very sweet. She told me my NC status.
Nebraska is not actively processing India EB2 cases.
Texas - we have no idea what they are processing on .RD/ND//PD.. God knows.. Its random most probably.
Ideally, if NC has been pending for more than 6 months they should not from approving 485. Again this is luck. !!
Hope this helps..
I had an infopass appointment at San Francisco today to inquire about my name check. I am a July 2007 485 filer. PD March 2006, I140 - May 2006, 485 RD- July 27, 2007 and ND- Aug 27, 2007.
The agent said that they dont hold cases for name check any more since April 2008 and cannot tell what is the status of the name check. I also inquired about my 485 case and she said pointing to the Notice Date of my 485 not the Receipt DATE, that currently Nebraska is processing Aug 10th cases.
I wanted to know from you whether there is any other way to get the info about name check and whether the processing is based on Reciept date or notice date?
Any idea?
cheers
Sidharth
girlfriend anime wolves running. anime
mhathi
09-23 07:55 AM
I suggest you talk to a good lawyer! This kind of question is too sensitive to rely on people's opinion.
hairstyles anime wolves with wings.
shreekhand
07-29 11:23 AM
Nowhere did I say I am not sure. In fact I am as sure as it can get :)
The original poster is talking about adjusting status to F-1 but not already being on F-1. Understand that difference here.
For FYI: If one is already on F-1 and applies for I-485 he/she is no longer on F-1 for all practical purposes but in a "period of stay as authorized by the attorney general". In such a case he/she can anyways use a EAD but have to have an AP while re-entering and continue studying as usual.
Note that F-1 and applied for I-485 is a highly debatable topic amongst the legal fraternity.
If you are not sure, don't give untrue info!! His F1 will be unaffected until and when he starts using EAD. He will not be able to re-enter on F1, but as long as he does not use EAD he can maintain this status. To re-enter he will need to use AP and at that point he is no longer in F1.
Also, once you file I485, there is no problem going to school as long as he maintains the job he was originally sponsored for.
The original poster is talking about adjusting status to F-1 but not already being on F-1. Understand that difference here.
For FYI: If one is already on F-1 and applies for I-485 he/she is no longer on F-1 for all practical purposes but in a "period of stay as authorized by the attorney general". In such a case he/she can anyways use a EAD but have to have an AP while re-entering and continue studying as usual.
Note that F-1 and applied for I-485 is a highly debatable topic amongst the legal fraternity.
If you are not sure, don't give untrue info!! His F1 will be unaffected until and when he starts using EAD. He will not be able to re-enter on F1, but as long as he does not use EAD he can maintain this status. To re-enter he will need to use AP and at that point he is no longer in F1.
Also, once you file I485, there is no problem going to school as long as he maintains the job he was originally sponsored for.
shirish
08-30 11:52 AM
How do you call USCIS? I mean what options did you select to talk to some one. Looks like their options are changed.
I called USCIS today and they said they are using the receipt date on I797 and not on the website. Yes that is right on website they show ND and say receipt date..its all messed up, but as per totay's call, it seems 797 RD is what they are using.
I called USCIS today and they said they are using the receipt date on I797 and not on the website. Yes that is right on website they show ND and say receipt date..its all messed up, but as per totay's call, it seems 797 RD is what they are using.
roseball
02-23 04:51 PM
Texas allows instate tuition waivers for H1 and H4 visa holders provided they are residents of texas for 1 year. In other words, any H1/H4 holder residing in TX for more than a year only pays instate tuition.
No comments:
Post a Comment