nb_des
08-04 02:33 PM
Looks like they got some award
http://www.exceedcorporation.com/news.htm
http://www.exceedcorporation.com/news.htm
wallpaper this Easter coloring page
illusions
08-31 11:57 AM
well I wouldn't classify any company as good or bad, i've only gone to one company and have been with them since 05 and have no issues so far. They have provided me with everything that i needed and have so far been very professional.
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to write company specific information on the forum, so I'll refrain from that. But if you like any specifics you can drop me a PM. Heres what my company offers:
* NO Contracts / Bond what-so-ever.
* I get to choose my own rates (if i get my own contract that is, and i have so far)
* There is a 60:40 ratio. 60 i keep and 40 they keep. - Before taxes of course.(You might think this is high, but it's worthwhile cos i get no headaches)
* I get PPO Blue Cross Blue Shield Medical coverage for me and my wife.
* Upto $1000 in dental coverage in a year, reimbursed.
* Direct contact with the lawyer and i can pay him directly any immigration related fees, or opt to take a fraction off my paycheck. (Hence i know the actual cost and i know they are not charging any overhead costs)
* Direct deposit guaranteed at the end of the month even though they haven't received the payment as yet.
* I can leave them when ever i want, no questions asked nothing.
* If you are with them and you get your spouse in, they will offer up to 80:20 ratio and same benefits.
CONS:
====
* No training, in any related fields.
* You have to find your own contract (although they have affiliations with head hunters who would help in getting u a contract)
* Haven't ever spoken about on-bench pay... but i figure they will pay min for a month if need be.
At first i thought the ratio was too high and was looking to switch, and at the same time my wife was getting her H1B. A company NJ offered her a ratio of 70:30 and min benefits, plus a 1 year contract of which if breached would cost us 20K.
After she got her H1B and $2,500 in legal fees, they changed their minds, and was willing to pay only a fixed pay of 55K. I waited till she finished her training, and said screw you, gave em the finger.
She's now working with my company, and making 97K with a 80:20 ratio. Almost 20K more than me! lol.:eek:
In a nutshell i would watch out for the following no matter which company you choose.
* Make sure you cover all grounds with them 1st.
* Get everything in writing before anything. (In my case the first time it worked out fine, cos 60:40 was a high ratio but they offered all the benefits and no hassle.)
* Make sure you have access to the lawyer directly.
* Always go for a ratio basis, the more you are billed the more you earn, and it motivates you.
Good Luck.
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to write company specific information on the forum, so I'll refrain from that. But if you like any specifics you can drop me a PM. Heres what my company offers:
* NO Contracts / Bond what-so-ever.
* I get to choose my own rates (if i get my own contract that is, and i have so far)
* There is a 60:40 ratio. 60 i keep and 40 they keep. - Before taxes of course.(You might think this is high, but it's worthwhile cos i get no headaches)
* I get PPO Blue Cross Blue Shield Medical coverage for me and my wife.
* Upto $1000 in dental coverage in a year, reimbursed.
* Direct contact with the lawyer and i can pay him directly any immigration related fees, or opt to take a fraction off my paycheck. (Hence i know the actual cost and i know they are not charging any overhead costs)
* Direct deposit guaranteed at the end of the month even though they haven't received the payment as yet.
* I can leave them when ever i want, no questions asked nothing.
* If you are with them and you get your spouse in, they will offer up to 80:20 ratio and same benefits.
CONS:
====
* No training, in any related fields.
* You have to find your own contract (although they have affiliations with head hunters who would help in getting u a contract)
* Haven't ever spoken about on-bench pay... but i figure they will pay min for a month if need be.
At first i thought the ratio was too high and was looking to switch, and at the same time my wife was getting her H1B. A company NJ offered her a ratio of 70:30 and min benefits, plus a 1 year contract of which if breached would cost us 20K.
After she got her H1B and $2,500 in legal fees, they changed their minds, and was willing to pay only a fixed pay of 55K. I waited till she finished her training, and said screw you, gave em the finger.
She's now working with my company, and making 97K with a 80:20 ratio. Almost 20K more than me! lol.:eek:
In a nutshell i would watch out for the following no matter which company you choose.
* Make sure you cover all grounds with them 1st.
* Get everything in writing before anything. (In my case the first time it worked out fine, cos 60:40 was a high ratio but they offered all the benefits and no hassle.)
* Make sure you have access to the lawyer directly.
* Always go for a ratio basis, the more you are billed the more you earn, and it motivates you.
Good Luck.
dilipb
02-13 09:24 AM
I am EB3, Indian, PD Aug 2004.
This is stupid.
"PD should be current to apply for 485
and PD should also be current for them to approve my 485"
Yup, retrogression sucketh.
This is stupid.
"PD should be current to apply for 485
and PD should also be current for them to approve my 485"
Yup, retrogression sucketh.
2011 this easter bunny coloring
h1bnogc
08-29 09:12 AM
Thank you both for sharing your thoughts...
I have an unexpired H-1B visa stamp in my passport and I have contacted my attorney to upgrade the petition to premium. I plan to re-enter the country with the approved I797 and the unexpired H1B visa associated with the previous employer.
For some reason, my attorney feels strongly that I need to get visa stamp in my passport from either canada or home country(India), if the petition is approved. Do you see any strong reason why he thinks I need a visa stamp in my passport?
I have tried to convince him that people do re-enter with the approved I797 with attached I94, as long as they have an unexpired visa of the same class.
Immigstories:
Could you please share your experience at POE? many many thanks
I have an unexpired H-1B visa stamp in my passport and I have contacted my attorney to upgrade the petition to premium. I plan to re-enter the country with the approved I797 and the unexpired H1B visa associated with the previous employer.
For some reason, my attorney feels strongly that I need to get visa stamp in my passport from either canada or home country(India), if the petition is approved. Do you see any strong reason why he thinks I need a visa stamp in my passport?
I have tried to convince him that people do re-enter with the approved I797 with attached I94, as long as they have an unexpired visa of the same class.
Immigstories:
Could you please share your experience at POE? many many thanks
more...
chanduv23
07-19 10:19 AM
Can you start residency on EAD if you are the primary for 485? Meaning, can you use AC21 and change jobs from research to residency after 180 days from filing? Please help, really confused.
Excellent question. It depends on the institution's knowledge of these complexities.
We must ask specialists like Greg Siskind or Stephen Perlitsh.
It would be a good idea if we setuup a conference call with either of these residency gurus, unless you know someone else who is the best.
There is a group called IV Physicians, 'paskal' runs this group. So if you are doing research, residency etc... you must join this group.
Excellent question. It depends on the institution's knowledge of these complexities.
We must ask specialists like Greg Siskind or Stephen Perlitsh.
It would be a good idea if we setuup a conference call with either of these residency gurus, unless you know someone else who is the best.
There is a group called IV Physicians, 'paskal' runs this group. So if you are doing research, residency etc... you must join this group.
jsb
10-30 04:08 PM
I don't know what amt was enclosed with the application. All I know it is rejected b'couse of Incorrect/No Fee. My concern is it was rejected on Sep 22nd & lawyer might have got the notice of rejection & he missed it or don't know what happened. It is already more than a month now. How much time is there to resend the application.
Thanks
-Kiru
From the postings here I am getting to understand that the so called lawyers are not really so. Though it is too late for you, as a lesson one should not depend on them entirely. Review full application , letter by letter yourself before filing, check signatures yourself, and then ask for a copy of the entire package (including copies of checks) for your records.
Anyway, it may be possible to refile by attaching suitable note on the top in bright colors (as USCIS says) so that it is not opened in the mail room.
Thanks
-Kiru
From the postings here I am getting to understand that the so called lawyers are not really so. Though it is too late for you, as a lesson one should not depend on them entirely. Review full application , letter by letter yourself before filing, check signatures yourself, and then ask for a copy of the entire package (including copies of checks) for your records.
Anyway, it may be possible to refile by attaching suitable note on the top in bright colors (as USCIS says) so that it is not opened in the mail room.
more...
LONGGCQUE
05-12 04:22 PM
correct
2010 Net - Childrens Coloring Book
snarla
06-21 01:40 PM
My friends recently went to the consulte in Nogales to get their H1B stamped and they told me that we can enter Nogales with out any visa ... You might want to explore that or find any other places that are closer to where u live and do not need a visa to get a new I94 ...
I am in the same boat as u and i donot even have my new passport with me yet ...
GoodLuck ... Hope things work out for you ... do post your experiences when u are done with all this ...
I am in the same boat as u and i donot even have my new passport with me yet ...
GoodLuck ... Hope things work out for you ... do post your experiences when u are done with all this ...
more...
nixone
09-18 05:59 PM
Two IDIOTS gave me red dots and these comments:
--------------
H-1B and working overtime 08-21-2008 11:31 PM ask the doctors who work more than 80 hrs a week
H-1B and working overtime 08-21-2008 09:58 PM Who gave youa H1 Visa, you dumbo?
--------------
I do not understand what was wrong with my question here. I did not know there are idiots roam around this forum and give people RED DOT for no reason. I wish there is a way to know who gave those dots and comments. Get a life you idiots.
--------------
H-1B and working overtime 08-21-2008 11:31 PM ask the doctors who work more than 80 hrs a week
H-1B and working overtime 08-21-2008 09:58 PM Who gave youa H1 Visa, you dumbo?
--------------
I do not understand what was wrong with my question here. I did not know there are idiots roam around this forum and give people RED DOT for no reason. I wish there is a way to know who gave those dots and comments. Get a life you idiots.
hair Pictureseaster bunny with egg
ram006
07-17 01:04 AM
I am not sure if my reply is correct.
But if the dates are current for you, can you just not reapply for 485 ?
I can re-apply, but my 485 is already approved on July 8th!
But if the dates are current for you, can you just not reapply for 485 ?
I can re-apply, but my 485 is already approved on July 8th!
more...
perm2gc
12-30 02:46 PM
Applicable to all retrogessed guys...
Case deatils :
Approved I-140 & H1-B extended for 3 years beyond 6 years because of approved I-140. Can NOT file I-485 because of retrogression
Next step H1-B transferred to new employer & redo Labor & I-140.
Question :
Can you file I-485 for both employers at the same time ???? & choose whichever comes first. Will there be any complicated issue if you filed I-485 with the 2nd employer after 1st employer has filed I-485
Bottom line ... How complicated will the life be if one changes job after 3 yr. extension of H1 based on approved I-140 ????
Please share your info as the attorneys are nuts..
Has this issues beeb discussed in detail at any other place like WWW.immigration - law.com ??
Please provide with the link
CORE TEAM : Can this issue be discussed with the Attorneys in upcoming conference ???
Your questions have been already addressed many times in many threads.Please search the forum.
Thank you
Case deatils :
Approved I-140 & H1-B extended for 3 years beyond 6 years because of approved I-140. Can NOT file I-485 because of retrogression
Next step H1-B transferred to new employer & redo Labor & I-140.
Question :
Can you file I-485 for both employers at the same time ???? & choose whichever comes first. Will there be any complicated issue if you filed I-485 with the 2nd employer after 1st employer has filed I-485
Bottom line ... How complicated will the life be if one changes job after 3 yr. extension of H1 based on approved I-140 ????
Please share your info as the attorneys are nuts..
Has this issues beeb discussed in detail at any other place like WWW.immigration - law.com ??
Please provide with the link
CORE TEAM : Can this issue be discussed with the Attorneys in upcoming conference ???
Your questions have been already addressed many times in many threads.Please search the forum.
Thank you
hot of Easter Egg Coloring
mytv
08-17 11:59 AM
See as my H4 was getting over on Aug 1st and i was turning 21 .AS you all know once we complete 21 yrs we are no more dependent .so i applied my f1 in april and it got approved in aug. My dad got his 1-140 approved 7 months ago and he applied our all's i-485 on july 2nd 2007. so i just wanna know is there any problem ?will i get my green card??
plz help me
lawyers saw it is not a problem .But all know how lawyers are...
plz help me
lawyers saw it is not a problem .But all know how lawyers are...
more...
house Easter egg coloring pages
Munna Bhai
10-26 11:18 AM
Ashkam is right...
Labor has to be pending 1 year. I think you will get your PERM approval soon as DOL at present is free.
Be prepared with the paper work for your I-140 premium so that you can file it as soon as you get the PERM approval.
The lawyers will say it will take them no time but they will delay it by at-least 3 weeks to get the paper work done.
In the worst case go for a vacation for 4 months to Canada, get your paper work mailed to you, get the extension stamping done and be back.
I hope this helps and good luck on your green card pursuit...
I-140 premium processing is not available.
Labor has to be pending 1 year. I think you will get your PERM approval soon as DOL at present is free.
Be prepared with the paper work for your I-140 premium so that you can file it as soon as you get the PERM approval.
The lawyers will say it will take them no time but they will delay it by at-least 3 weeks to get the paper work done.
In the worst case go for a vacation for 4 months to Canada, get your paper work mailed to you, get the extension stamping done and be back.
I hope this helps and good luck on your green card pursuit...
I-140 premium processing is not available.
tattoo Easter Bunny coloring pages
adde72
07-17 06:03 PM
I agree.. The flower campaign shouldn't be taken for granted.. let it just be special.. Thank you cards adn notes will be the best..
Agreed. Its should remain in History for USCIS july VB fiasco
Agreed. Its should remain in History for USCIS july VB fiasco
more...
pictures Coloring pages of Easter
jatinr
08-03 05:40 PM
My I-140 is approved.
But as per the August visa bulletin all the country visa numbers are U right. The August 17th is just an extension for the July visa bulletin rollback right?
You are right, if you apply now, you will get 3 yr extension. The extenion is based on whether your I-140 is approved and if the visa numbers are unavailable at the time of applying for extension.
But as per the August visa bulletin all the country visa numbers are U right. The August 17th is just an extension for the July visa bulletin rollback right?
You are right, if you apply now, you will get 3 yr extension. The extenion is based on whether your I-140 is approved and if the visa numbers are unavailable at the time of applying for extension.
dresses Easter bunny coloring
bsbawa10
09-01 03:58 PM
Congrats to you....I am still waiting.
more...
makeup Free Easter Bunny Coloring
gc_samba
07-17 05:03 PM
Thank you I appreciate your response
No minimum period is necessary and firing will not have any negative impact.
No minimum period is necessary and firing will not have any negative impact.
girlfriend Coloringcollection of kids
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
hairstyles Easter Bunny Game amp; Coloring
shiankuraaf
01-06 09:02 AM
February visa bulletin will be out this week any day.
What is the opinion of gurus who analysed that latest USCS numbers about dates? what do you predict?
I gave you RED for a misleading title for this thread. Be nice and clear.
What is the opinion of gurus who analysed that latest USCS numbers about dates? what do you predict?
I gave you RED for a misleading title for this thread. Be nice and clear.
kaarmaa
05-04 06:07 PM
Hi kaarmaa
Thanks for your response.
I am guessing you had a 3 years extension after your 6 years and in your 7th year you transferred over just as a normal H1b would have done. Correct? So in this case, what is the significance of I-140 since your new emplyer will have to apply for PERM and LC again in any case?
No.
I'm in my 7th and my H1B is expiring this June. My new employer filed for a three year extension using my approved 140 copy.
I-140 can be used to reclaim the old priority date.
Please consult an attorney. I have knowledge limited to my case.
Thanks for your response.
I am guessing you had a 3 years extension after your 6 years and in your 7th year you transferred over just as a normal H1b would have done. Correct? So in this case, what is the significance of I-140 since your new emplyer will have to apply for PERM and LC again in any case?
No.
I'm in my 7th and my H1B is expiring this June. My new employer filed for a three year extension using my approved 140 copy.
I-140 can be used to reclaim the old priority date.
Please consult an attorney. I have knowledge limited to my case.
chanduv23
12-11 09:11 PM
Attorney Reddy will be on IV chat today at 9.30 PM , members can ask immigration related questions
No comments:
Post a Comment