amsgc
08-07 09:55 PM
why is name check still an issue? I thought the Feb memo spelt it out in no uncertain terms.
wallpaper 2009 Honda Accord Coupe
Munna Bhai
02-08 11:32 AM
Hello,
My thread had wrong title and that created more problem, hope this title makes sense and please feel free to share your experience.
I know the following, I worked very hard for the current company and they pay me the way they pay any immigrant. Atlast got my I-140 approved and now I would like to go ahead with available options and at any cost I will protect I-140 from being revoked.
If I-140 is not revoked:
a)One can extend H1b through any company for 3-years.
b)One can get PD ported.
If I-140 is revoked:
a)It is a grey area but commen-sense says that one is out-of-status.
How to protect I-140 being revoked:
a)Transfer the case to your own attorney?? See that employer or employer's attorney has not much say on your case file??
b)Give some valid reason to current employer until your I-140 from other company is approved.
Or any other thoughts???
My thread had wrong title and that created more problem, hope this title makes sense and please feel free to share your experience.
I know the following, I worked very hard for the current company and they pay me the way they pay any immigrant. Atlast got my I-140 approved and now I would like to go ahead with available options and at any cost I will protect I-140 from being revoked.
If I-140 is not revoked:
a)One can extend H1b through any company for 3-years.
b)One can get PD ported.
If I-140 is revoked:
a)It is a grey area but commen-sense says that one is out-of-status.
How to protect I-140 being revoked:
a)Transfer the case to your own attorney?? See that employer or employer's attorney has not much say on your case file??
b)Give some valid reason to current employer until your I-140 from other company is approved.
Or any other thoughts???
vinabath
07-16 12:47 PM
Interesting. My Labor says
14) Education BS,
Years of experience 3
15) Other Special Requirements "MS + 1year" OR "BS + 3 years".
I have a MS. My lawyer says this is a EB3 application. 140 still pending. The receipt however says "Skilled Worker". Any possibility my 140 gets approved as EB2?
Anything can happen with USCIS. But i think the position's MINIMUM req is BS+3 years exp and that is EB3.
14) Education BS,
Years of experience 3
15) Other Special Requirements "MS + 1year" OR "BS + 3 years".
I have a MS. My lawyer says this is a EB3 application. 140 still pending. The receipt however says "Skilled Worker". Any possibility my 140 gets approved as EB2?
Anything can happen with USCIS. But i think the position's MINIMUM req is BS+3 years exp and that is EB3.
2011 Honda Accord 2009 Coupe Black.
tabletpc
01-10 01:23 PM
Its a gray area....!!!!!
She can work for the same employer on H1b, but is she on H1b status or not....its difficult to say. Hope i am not confusing you.
From what i have understood about GC law, once you take any benifit of GC, you are abounding your previous status.
I would suggest you to talk to your attorney.
Good luck
She can work for the same employer on H1b, but is she on H1b status or not....its difficult to say. Hope i am not confusing you.
From what i have understood about GC law, once you take any benifit of GC, you are abounding your previous status.
I would suggest you to talk to your attorney.
Good luck
more...
jayleno
08-08 10:08 PM
Hey ..You could take GMAT training or something from Kaplan which issues F-1 Visa for 3 months which is the duration of the course. 20 hours of mandatory attendence is there per week and you cannot work during that time....but you are covered legally. First get an F-1 and then apply for a H-1. I did this in 2004.
Jubba
09-04 08:23 PM
heres another way to do it
http://www.b-man.dk/tuts_pixelstretch.asp
http://www.b-man.dk/tuts_pixelstretch.asp
more...
needhelp!
01-18 01:14 PM
Wonderful news!
And gsc is back with a bang!
And gsc is back with a bang!
2010 Download: 2008 Honda Accord
redgreen
06-21 07:28 PM
So much of misinformation by many 'legal advisors'!
Please note that:
1. Unemployment benefits is not a public charge.
2. For getting unemployment benefits one need not be a citizen/permanent resident.
3. You don't acquire illegal stay if you have a valid I-485 pending.
Please read relevant FAQs at the USCIS webpage.
Don't rely on advices from ignorants who try to scare people!
Please note that:
1. Unemployment benefits is not a public charge.
2. For getting unemployment benefits one need not be a citizen/permanent resident.
3. You don't acquire illegal stay if you have a valid I-485 pending.
Please read relevant FAQs at the USCIS webpage.
Don't rely on advices from ignorants who try to scare people!
more...
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.
hair 2009-honda-accord-coupe-13
joshraj
10-03 11:54 AM
Filed: July 27
Center: Neb
RD: Not Yet
FP: Not Yet
EAD: Not Yet
I140 - Pending at Nebraska
Center: Neb
RD: Not Yet
FP: Not Yet
EAD: Not Yet
I140 - Pending at Nebraska
more...
yagw
09-26 07:27 PM
This is disheartening...
Don't be. You will be current in Oct and I believe going forward (chances of retrogressing to 2005 is very slim if at all there is any retrogression).
That said, don't wait for USCIS. Be proactive and do all you can. I would suggest
1. Calling the USCIS customer service (get hold of level 2 rep by telling the level 1 your case is outside normal processing time) and try to get the status of your case. Might take few tries before you can get some info.
2. Open an SR.
3. Do the above for your dependents if any.
4. Make infopass (you have already done this).
5. Contact local congress man/woman.
6. Send mail to CIS Ombudsman
7. If your security check is not cleared yet, you can contact FBI (by phone) and find out the status.
(more information on all these can be gotten from simple google search. If not, post here and some one here should be able to help you.)
Good luck.
Don't be. You will be current in Oct and I believe going forward (chances of retrogressing to 2005 is very slim if at all there is any retrogression).
That said, don't wait for USCIS. Be proactive and do all you can. I would suggest
1. Calling the USCIS customer service (get hold of level 2 rep by telling the level 1 your case is outside normal processing time) and try to get the status of your case. Might take few tries before you can get some info.
2. Open an SR.
3. Do the above for your dependents if any.
4. Make infopass (you have already done this).
5. Contact local congress man/woman.
6. Send mail to CIS Ombudsman
7. If your security check is not cleared yet, you can contact FBI (by phone) and find out the status.
(more information on all these can be gotten from simple google search. If not, post here and some one here should be able to help you.)
Good luck.
hot why the 2009 Honda Accord
forgerator
11-11 11:49 AM
Thank you for the post. It is really helpful. May I know if the new job should be >=50% different from the current job (EB3) offer? Or it doesn�t matter because of the MS requirement?
Thank you
Project_A
It should be greater than 50% different if you wish to use the previous position's experience.
Here is how it happened in my case
Company 1 - 2yrs exp
Company 2 position 1 - 3 yrs exp
Company 2 position 2 - 0.5 yrs exp (I was able to only reclaim the 2yrs exp gained at company 1 but that along with my existing MS degree was enough for filing for EB2. In company 2 both position 1 and position 2 are similar so I could not use those 3 yrs for my EB2).
Thank you
Project_A
It should be greater than 50% different if you wish to use the previous position's experience.
Here is how it happened in my case
Company 1 - 2yrs exp
Company 2 position 1 - 3 yrs exp
Company 2 position 2 - 0.5 yrs exp (I was able to only reclaim the 2yrs exp gained at company 1 but that along with my existing MS degree was enough for filing for EB2. In company 2 both position 1 and position 2 are similar so I could not use those 3 yrs for my EB2).
more...
house 2009 Honda Accord 3.5L Coupe
rajasaab
10-25 09:21 AM
i think your best bet is to get an Indian Visa for your kid...the PIO card takes atleast 45 business days and the OCI takes almost 20 weeks!! I just applied for the PIO card for my daughter last friday at the DC consulate and they said it will be 45 days. BTW..thats not consulate dependent - the website also says that 45 days is the processing time.
also.. the US passport took 4-6 weeks (normal processing) you can pay extra and get it expedited.
Keep in mind that when you apply for the PIO card they will take the original US passport so incase you change your mind later and want to apply for a Visa you wont be able to!!
also.. the US passport took 4-6 weeks (normal processing) you can pay extra and get it expedited.
Keep in mind that when you apply for the PIO card they will take the original US passport so incase you change your mind later and want to apply for a Visa you wont be able to!!
tattoo Honda Accord 2009 Coupe Black.
pappu
08-21 10:21 AM
Its a window of opportunity for us.
lets all email the following expressing support and hoping for some relief measues for highly educated skilled immigrants.:
===
Wite email addresed to:
Harold McGraw III
Chairman, Business Roundtable
Chairman, President & CEO, The McGraw-Hill Companies
info@businessroundtable.org
and co-address to any 1 of the following:
Edward B. Rust, Jr.
Co-Chairman, Business Roundtable
Chairman & CEO, State Farm Insurance Companies
Kenneth I. Chenault
Co-Chairman, Business Roundtable
Chairman & CEO, American Express Company
John J. Castellani
President, Business Roundtable
Larry D. Burton
Executive Director, Business Roundtable
Johanna I. Schneider
Executive Director, External Relations
====
then also email to the magazine that published this article expressing support for such initiative and hoping for something to be done this year before elections. send the letter to the editor so that editor can print in next issue right when this issue is debated on the floor (hopefully). This magazine is read by scientists and it will generate awareness in the community for our cause. Today the nation seems more inclined towards border security and enforcement rather than immigration reform bill. However increasing America's competitiveness in science and technology will have several supporters across party lines.
science_editors@aaas.org (general editorial queries)
science_letters@aaas.org (queries about letters to the editor)
send to both email ids
---
Members with good with writing skills please post your letter drafts on this thread so that others can also use your letter and can send it.
===
lets all email the following expressing support and hoping for some relief measues for highly educated skilled immigrants.:
===
Wite email addresed to:
Harold McGraw III
Chairman, Business Roundtable
Chairman, President & CEO, The McGraw-Hill Companies
info@businessroundtable.org
and co-address to any 1 of the following:
Edward B. Rust, Jr.
Co-Chairman, Business Roundtable
Chairman & CEO, State Farm Insurance Companies
Kenneth I. Chenault
Co-Chairman, Business Roundtable
Chairman & CEO, American Express Company
John J. Castellani
President, Business Roundtable
Larry D. Burton
Executive Director, Business Roundtable
Johanna I. Schneider
Executive Director, External Relations
====
then also email to the magazine that published this article expressing support for such initiative and hoping for something to be done this year before elections. send the letter to the editor so that editor can print in next issue right when this issue is debated on the floor (hopefully). This magazine is read by scientists and it will generate awareness in the community for our cause. Today the nation seems more inclined towards border security and enforcement rather than immigration reform bill. However increasing America's competitiveness in science and technology will have several supporters across party lines.
science_editors@aaas.org (general editorial queries)
science_letters@aaas.org (queries about letters to the editor)
send to both email ids
---
Members with good with writing skills please post your letter drafts on this thread so that others can also use your letter and can send it.
===
more...
pictures Best Cool Honda Accord Coupe
immigrationmatters30
06-14 12:43 PM
Sorry to say this but there are very few memebers on this forum without EAD. I think this website existed for a while but only came to life when dates became current in 2007. You can notice that most memebers here are with EAD when you see the number responses you get for EAD/AP related threads Vs H1B. Open an H1B thread and notice how quick that gets buried. But that will soon change, when most memebers with EAD get their green card they will hopefully be replaced by newer, non-EAD memebers and then we will have one united community(H1B, non-EAD,temporary workers). FYI, no EAD for me as well.
dresses 2008 - 2009 - 2010 Honda
zigma
04-06 07:21 AM
With this bill, if the thought is that about half of the illegals (<5yrs) will have to leave the country and return, and that too without any guarantees, they are not going to do it unless the consequences are drastic. Some, even then may decide that staying illegally is a better option than going back.
IMHO, this bill amounts to saying,
1. Let's legalize some of the illegals
2. Let's push the the rest of the problem away for another 10-12 years
3. A compromise
But the question that arises is that, what prevents people who have been here legally (>5yrs) from applying for GC thorugh this method?
IMHO, this bill amounts to saying,
1. Let's legalize some of the illegals
2. Let's push the the rest of the problem away for another 10-12 years
3. A compromise
But the question that arises is that, what prevents people who have been here legally (>5yrs) from applying for GC thorugh this method?
more...
makeup 2008 Honda Accord Coupe EX
aug2007
02-24 07:53 AM
Thank you theshiningsun and chanduv23.
Chanduv23 - You are right. I'm working for a consulting company and the contract is ending.
I want to clarify little more.
1. Will I receive NOID, if my employer revokes I140? Can I avoid it by filing AC21 before my existing employer cancels the I140?
2. Can I travel out of the country without the job? Will it cause any issue at the Port of Entry, if I use AP to enter US (but currently doesn't have the job in hand)?
Chanduv23 - You are right. I'm working for a consulting company and the contract is ending.
I want to clarify little more.
1. Will I receive NOID, if my employer revokes I140? Can I avoid it by filing AC21 before my existing employer cancels the I140?
2. Can I travel out of the country without the job? Will it cause any issue at the Port of Entry, if I use AP to enter US (but currently doesn't have the job in hand)?
girlfriend 2009 Honda Accord Coupe with
punjabi
10-23 03:50 PM
If you get laid off, find a company at a rate that will meet your minimum LCA wages requirement for H1B (W2) or EAD (I will approximate the wages mentioned in labor document). I think you have 30 days of buffer, but I will find something right away.
There is a chance that i might get laid off. I have a pending I485 filed on July 2. My I-140 was approved in June 06. Would like to know if i get laid off within how many days do i have to find a job.
really need to know this based on the market situation.
There is a chance that i might get laid off. I have a pending I485 filed on July 2. My I-140 was approved in June 06. Would like to know if i get laid off within how many days do i have to find a job.
really need to know this based on the market situation.
hairstyles 2009-honda-accord-coupe-02
tikka
08-06 09:48 AM
...bump...
I will be there..
I will be there..
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.
GCBy3000
01-03 11:12 AM
This is a great move strategically to make members part of IV. With this, there is no need for IV to constantly campaingn for funds with regular active members. IV's energy towards campaign could be targeted towards the new members and other non monthly contributors.
I appreciate all the members who have volunteered to contribute on monthly basis. It is just a matter of spending on one lunch / one bar outing or for a movie.
Still let us keep a open thread for every month to make sure the fire on monthly contribution keeps burning. We dont want it to subside until we reach our goal.
I appreciate all the members who have volunteered to contribute on monthly basis. It is just a matter of spending on one lunch / one bar outing or for a movie.
Still let us keep a open thread for every month to make sure the fire on monthly contribution keeps burning. We dont want it to subside until we reach our goal.
No comments:
Post a Comment