sobers
02-09 08:58 AM
Discussion about challenges in America�s immigration policies tends to focus on the millions of illegal immigrants. But the more pressing immigration problem facing the US today, writes Intel chairman Craig Barrett, is the dearth of high-skilled immigrants required to keep the US economy competitive. Due to tighter visa policies and a growth in opportunities elsewhere in the world, foreign students majoring in science and engineering at US universities are no longer staying to work after graduation in the large numbers that they once did. With the poor quality of science and math education at the primary and secondary levels in the US, the country cannot afford to lose any highly-skilled immigrants, particularly in key, technology-related disciplines. Along with across-the-board improvements in education, the US needs to find a way to attract enough new workers so that companies like Intel do not have to set up shop elsewhere.
----------------------------------
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Craig Barrett
The Financial Times, 1 February 2006
America is experiencing a profound immigration crisis but it is not about the 11m illegal immigrants currently exciting the press and politicians in Washington. The real crisis is that the US is closing its doors to immigrants with degrees in science, maths and engineering � the �best and brightest� from around the world who flock to the country for its educational and employment opportunities. These foreign-born knowledge workers are critically important to maintaining America�s technological competitiveness.
This is not a new issue; the US has been partially dependent on foreign scientists and engineers to establish and maintain its technological leadership for several decades. After the second world war, an influx of German engineers bolstered our efforts in aviation and space research. During the 1960s and 1970s, a brain drain from western Europe supplemented our own production of talent. In the 1980s and 1990s, our ranks of scientists and engineers were swelled by Asian immigrants who came to study in our universities, then stayed to pursue professional careers.
The US simply does not produce enough home-grown graduates in engineering and the hard sciences to meet our needs. Even during the high-tech revolution of the past two decades, when demand for employees with technical degrees was exploding, the number of students majoring in engineering in the US declined. Currently more than half the graduate students in engineering in the US are foreign born � until now, many of them have stayed on to seek employment. But this trend is changing rapidly.
Because of security concerns and improved education in their own counties, it is increasingly difficult to get foreign students into our universities. Those who do complete their studies in the US are returning home in ever greater numbers because of visa issues or enhanced professional opportunities there. So while Congress debates how to stem the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border, it is actually our policies on highly skilled immigration that may most negatively affect the American economy.
The US does have a specified process for granting admission or permanent residency to foreign engineers and scientists. The H1-B visa programme sets a cap � currently at 65,000 � on the number of foreigners allowed to enter and work each year. But the programme is oversubscribed because the cap is insufficient to meet the demands of the knowledge-based US economy.
The system does not grant automatic entry to all foreign students who study engineering and science at US universities. I have often said, only half in jest, that we should staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student who graduates from an advanced technical degree programme here.
At a time when we need more science and technology professionals, it makes no sense to invite foreign students to study at our universities, educate them partially at taxpayer expense and then tell them to go home and take the jobs those talents will create home with them.
The current situation can only be described as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. We need experienced and talented workers if our economy is to thrive. We have an immigration problem that remains intractable and, in an attempt to appear tough on illegal immigration, we over-control the employment-based legal immigration system. As a consequence, we keep many of the potentially most productive immigrants out of the country. If we had purposefully set out to design a system that would hobble our ability to be competitive, we could hardly do better than what we have today. Certainly in the post 9/11 world, security must always be a foremost concern. But that concern should not prevent us from having access to the highly skilled workers we need.
Meanwhile, when it comes to training a skilled, home-grown workforce, the US is rapidly being left in the dust.
A full half of China�s college graduates earn degrees in engineering, compared with only 5 per cent in the US. Even South Korea, with one-sixth the population of the US, graduates about the same number of engineers as American universities do. Part of this is due to the poor quality of our primary and secondary education, where US students typically fare poorly compared with their international counterparts in maths and science.
In a global, knowledge-based economy, businesses will naturally gravitate to locations with a ready supply of knowledge-based workers. Intel is a US-based company and we are proud of the fact that we have hired almost 10,000 new US employees in the past four years. But the hard economic fact is that if we cannot find or attract the workers we need here, the company � like every other business � will go where the talent is located.
We in the US have only two real choices: we can stand on the sidelines while countries such as India, China, and others dominate the game � and accept the consequent decline in our standard of living. Or we can decide to compete.
Deciding to compete means reforming the appalling state of primary and secondary education, where low expectations have become institutionalised, and urgently expanding science education in colleges and universities � much as we did in the 1950s after the Soviet launch of Sputnik gave our nation a needed wake-up call.
As a member of the National Academies Committee assigned by Congress to investigate this issue and propose solutions, I and the other members recommended that the government create 25,000 undergraduate and 5,000 graduate scholarships, each of $20,000 (�11,300), in technical fields, especially those determined to be in areas of urgent �national need�. Other recommendations included a tax credit for employers who make continuing education available for scientists and engineers, so that our workforce can keep pace with the rapid advance of scientific discovery, and a sustained national commitment to basic research.
But we all realised that even an effective national effort in this area would not produce results quickly enough. That is why deciding to compete also means opening doors wider to foreigners with the kind of technical knowledge our businesses need. At a minimum the US should vastly increase the number of permanent visas for highly educated foreigners, streamline the process for those already working here and allow foreign students in the hard sciences and engineering to move directly to permanent resident status. Any country that wants to remain competitive has to start competing for the best minds in the world. Without that we may be unable to maintain economic leadership in the 21st century.
----------------------------------
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Craig Barrett
The Financial Times, 1 February 2006
America is experiencing a profound immigration crisis but it is not about the 11m illegal immigrants currently exciting the press and politicians in Washington. The real crisis is that the US is closing its doors to immigrants with degrees in science, maths and engineering � the �best and brightest� from around the world who flock to the country for its educational and employment opportunities. These foreign-born knowledge workers are critically important to maintaining America�s technological competitiveness.
This is not a new issue; the US has been partially dependent on foreign scientists and engineers to establish and maintain its technological leadership for several decades. After the second world war, an influx of German engineers bolstered our efforts in aviation and space research. During the 1960s and 1970s, a brain drain from western Europe supplemented our own production of talent. In the 1980s and 1990s, our ranks of scientists and engineers were swelled by Asian immigrants who came to study in our universities, then stayed to pursue professional careers.
The US simply does not produce enough home-grown graduates in engineering and the hard sciences to meet our needs. Even during the high-tech revolution of the past two decades, when demand for employees with technical degrees was exploding, the number of students majoring in engineering in the US declined. Currently more than half the graduate students in engineering in the US are foreign born � until now, many of them have stayed on to seek employment. But this trend is changing rapidly.
Because of security concerns and improved education in their own counties, it is increasingly difficult to get foreign students into our universities. Those who do complete their studies in the US are returning home in ever greater numbers because of visa issues or enhanced professional opportunities there. So while Congress debates how to stem the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border, it is actually our policies on highly skilled immigration that may most negatively affect the American economy.
The US does have a specified process for granting admission or permanent residency to foreign engineers and scientists. The H1-B visa programme sets a cap � currently at 65,000 � on the number of foreigners allowed to enter and work each year. But the programme is oversubscribed because the cap is insufficient to meet the demands of the knowledge-based US economy.
The system does not grant automatic entry to all foreign students who study engineering and science at US universities. I have often said, only half in jest, that we should staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student who graduates from an advanced technical degree programme here.
At a time when we need more science and technology professionals, it makes no sense to invite foreign students to study at our universities, educate them partially at taxpayer expense and then tell them to go home and take the jobs those talents will create home with them.
The current situation can only be described as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. We need experienced and talented workers if our economy is to thrive. We have an immigration problem that remains intractable and, in an attempt to appear tough on illegal immigration, we over-control the employment-based legal immigration system. As a consequence, we keep many of the potentially most productive immigrants out of the country. If we had purposefully set out to design a system that would hobble our ability to be competitive, we could hardly do better than what we have today. Certainly in the post 9/11 world, security must always be a foremost concern. But that concern should not prevent us from having access to the highly skilled workers we need.
Meanwhile, when it comes to training a skilled, home-grown workforce, the US is rapidly being left in the dust.
A full half of China�s college graduates earn degrees in engineering, compared with only 5 per cent in the US. Even South Korea, with one-sixth the population of the US, graduates about the same number of engineers as American universities do. Part of this is due to the poor quality of our primary and secondary education, where US students typically fare poorly compared with their international counterparts in maths and science.
In a global, knowledge-based economy, businesses will naturally gravitate to locations with a ready supply of knowledge-based workers. Intel is a US-based company and we are proud of the fact that we have hired almost 10,000 new US employees in the past four years. But the hard economic fact is that if we cannot find or attract the workers we need here, the company � like every other business � will go where the talent is located.
We in the US have only two real choices: we can stand on the sidelines while countries such as India, China, and others dominate the game � and accept the consequent decline in our standard of living. Or we can decide to compete.
Deciding to compete means reforming the appalling state of primary and secondary education, where low expectations have become institutionalised, and urgently expanding science education in colleges and universities � much as we did in the 1950s after the Soviet launch of Sputnik gave our nation a needed wake-up call.
As a member of the National Academies Committee assigned by Congress to investigate this issue and propose solutions, I and the other members recommended that the government create 25,000 undergraduate and 5,000 graduate scholarships, each of $20,000 (�11,300), in technical fields, especially those determined to be in areas of urgent �national need�. Other recommendations included a tax credit for employers who make continuing education available for scientists and engineers, so that our workforce can keep pace with the rapid advance of scientific discovery, and a sustained national commitment to basic research.
But we all realised that even an effective national effort in this area would not produce results quickly enough. That is why deciding to compete also means opening doors wider to foreigners with the kind of technical knowledge our businesses need. At a minimum the US should vastly increase the number of permanent visas for highly educated foreigners, streamline the process for those already working here and allow foreign students in the hard sciences and engineering to move directly to permanent resident status. Any country that wants to remain competitive has to start competing for the best minds in the world. Without that we may be unable to maintain economic leadership in the 21st century.
wallpaper Lindsay Lohan Shows persuaded
GC_ASP
07-20 07:39 AM
If u r not married, its better to change the job using H1b transfer and use Ac21portability to continue the GC process ( new job should be similar). You don't have to use EAD. Once you start using ur EAD, you loose ur H1B status automatically and it would be hard to bring your wife on H4.
Here are the answers for ur three questions.
1. Your 485 will be in good standing as long as you change the job after 180 days of 485 receipt. You don't need any support from your ex-employer. But make sure your I-140 is approved before you leave and try to get the copy of it. If you leave before 140 approval, employer can revoke it and then your 485 will be denied. So chage the job after 180 days of 485 receipt using H1b transfer. (When using Ac21 portabilty you can inform USCIS proactively or wait for the RFE.) Don't use EAD if you are not married.
2. I think you can get H1B extension using 140 approval.
3.Yes, your wife can file the 485 when the PD is current. Her H1b doesn't have any effect on this.
I hope I answered the all your questions.
one misconception in the immigration community is that you need to use AC21 and EAD to change the job. This is not true. You don't have to use EAD to change the job. People use EAD just to avoid H1b transfer and other stuff.
Never use AP if you are unmarried.
This information is based on my research on this issue. For more accurate info, please contact the attorney!!!!
Here are the answers for ur three questions.
1. Your 485 will be in good standing as long as you change the job after 180 days of 485 receipt. You don't need any support from your ex-employer. But make sure your I-140 is approved before you leave and try to get the copy of it. If you leave before 140 approval, employer can revoke it and then your 485 will be denied. So chage the job after 180 days of 485 receipt using H1b transfer. (When using Ac21 portabilty you can inform USCIS proactively or wait for the RFE.) Don't use EAD if you are not married.
2. I think you can get H1B extension using 140 approval.
3.Yes, your wife can file the 485 when the PD is current. Her H1b doesn't have any effect on this.
I hope I answered the all your questions.
one misconception in the immigration community is that you need to use AC21 and EAD to change the job. This is not true. You don't have to use EAD to change the job. People use EAD just to avoid H1b transfer and other stuff.
Never use AP if you are unmarried.
This information is based on my research on this issue. For more accurate info, please contact the attorney!!!!
webm
06-02 07:58 PM
Send it to TSC..which make sense..
2011 Judge Warns Lindsay Lohan:
hemya
12-20 10:57 PM
My wife is applying for graduate school and they asked for her Alien registration Number. Should she give the one on her 485?
She is presently on H-4
She is presently on H-4
more...
Blog Feeds
09-18 10:20 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXCLqJoiZ1TAiNWTyZiohEr7LRFQ818E3yzx5tiseYT8km0ES92AprKhAddCYqqYG3ueRZ_5y_GXvUtbglhMHO38SSXbYG6jI8uxL4qT5vCpyJhu8mO_w8i7RD0ziiME4HOA56PXUqKLM/s320/Wilson+Liar.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXCLqJoiZ1TAiNWTyZiohEr7LRFQ818E3yzx5tiseYT8km0ES92AprKhAddCYqqYG3ueRZ_5y_GXvUtbglhMHO38SSXbYG6jI8uxL4qT5vCpyJhu8mO_w8i7RD0ziiME4HOA56PXUqKLM/s1600-h/Wilson+Liar.jpg)During President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, Congressman Joe Wilson (R. SC), shouted "LIAR!" when President Obama stated that the proposed health care plan would not cover "illegal aliens." Now, Joe Wilson said he should know this because he once was an immigration lawyer (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/09/rep-joe-wilson-speaks-to-rwv.html). Whether that meant immigration from or to South Carolina, I am not sure, but one thing is for sure, no one I know ever knew Joe Wilson the immigration lawyer. If by "immigration lawyer" Mr. Wilson meant that he once helped an immigrant get deported, I am not sure that really counts. But if "Joe the Immigration Lawyer" is like "Joe the Plumber," then maybe he thinks he really was one.
After all, an immigration lawyer would likely be able to understand what exactly the law means when it says that only citizens and permanent residents are covered under the Obama plan. What has caused Joe Wilson to react like this, besides a serious lack of self control, is the provision in the proposed legislation that eliminates the requirement of using the "SAVE" system to verify whether someone who is an immigrant, is legally in the United States. Use of this program has stopped very few undocumented immigrants from getting public benefits, but has stopped literally thousands of U.S. citizens, mostly poor, from obtaining benefits because of their lack of accessible proof of their citizenship.
Factcheck.org has presented a short article on Seven Falsehoods About Health Care (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/). One of those applies directly to this point:
False: Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered. One Republican congressman issued
a press release claiming that "5,600,000 Illegal Aliens May Be Covered Under Obamacare (http://steveking.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a294b300-19b9-b4b1-1296-659af869849a&Region_id=&Issue_id=)," and we�ve been peppered with queries about similar claims. They�re not true. In fact, the House bill (the only bill to be formally introduced in its entirety) specifically says that no federal money would be spent on giving illegal immigrants health coverage:
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 � NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
Also, under current law, those in the country illegally don�t qualify for federal health programs. Of interest: About half of illegal immigrants have health insurance now, according to the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center, which says those who lack insurance do so principally because their employers don�t offer it."Misleading GOP Health Care Claims" (http://factcheck.org/2009/07/misleading-gop-health-care-claims/) July 23 � by Brooks Jackson, Viveca Novak, Lori Robertson and Jess Henig.
I can certainly see both sides of the debate, and, frankly, neither side is being completely honest or clear. What is quite clear, is how immigration, and our broken immigration system, keeps coming up in the context of the debate of national agenda items, such as the health care debate.
Several weeks ago I blogged on the danger that the tone of the Health care debate (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/08/healthcare-debate-and-immigration.html)had for the coming immigration reform debate. Calling the President a Liar during his speech to a joint session to Congress is Exhibit A in what we have in store for the coming debate. If Joe Wilson the Immigration Lawyer can misrepresent the consequences of legislative language as straight forward as these two particular sections, we have to be prepared for the extraordinary misrepresentations of any positive aspects of an immigration reform bill. Whether it is "amnesty," "rewarding law breakers," "open borders," "Liars," or even "destroyers of American culture" we have to understand how to phrase and present the response. Without a doubt, the response from those of us who understand the need to balance immigration reform, with security concerns, and with economic growth has to be not only vocal, but focused. We, as Real Immigration Lawyers, must know the language of the proposed legislation, we must know the myths that are out there, and we need to be vocal in our response.
Next week, more than 40 talk radio hosts are descending on Capital Hill for the FAIR (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=846)Annual Scare the Crap Out of Congress Boondoggle. The outrageous claims of the downfall of America caused by illegal immigration, along with similarly nutty myths will be presented as facts. Actual real news organization will cite the Center for Immigration Studies as a legitimate source of information. We must be prepared to call into our local radio stations, whose hosts are in D.C. next week, and be prepared to present the facts of immigration. Not by sugar coating the problems that are caused by illegal immigration, but rather by pointing out which specific laws are broken (INA 212(a)(9) anyone?) and how having a comprehensive solution can actually fix the immigration pothole in the legislative superhighway. Immigration Lawyers it is time to Stand Up and be vocal and beat back the immigration myths (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?bc=27924).
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-8070452709764975137?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/liar-what-does-health-care-have-to-do.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXCLqJoiZ1TAiNWTyZiohEr7LRFQ818E3yzx5tiseYT8km0ES92AprKhAddCYqqYG3ueRZ_5y_GXvUtbglhMHO38SSXbYG6jI8uxL4qT5vCpyJhu8mO_w8i7RD0ziiME4HOA56PXUqKLM/s320/Wilson+Liar.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXCLqJoiZ1TAiNWTyZiohEr7LRFQ818E3yzx5tiseYT8km0ES92AprKhAddCYqqYG3ueRZ_5y_GXvUtbglhMHO38SSXbYG6jI8uxL4qT5vCpyJhu8mO_w8i7RD0ziiME4HOA56PXUqKLM/s1600-h/Wilson+Liar.jpg)During President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, Congressman Joe Wilson (R. SC), shouted "LIAR!" when President Obama stated that the proposed health care plan would not cover "illegal aliens." Now, Joe Wilson said he should know this because he once was an immigration lawyer (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/09/rep-joe-wilson-speaks-to-rwv.html). Whether that meant immigration from or to South Carolina, I am not sure, but one thing is for sure, no one I know ever knew Joe Wilson the immigration lawyer. If by "immigration lawyer" Mr. Wilson meant that he once helped an immigrant get deported, I am not sure that really counts. But if "Joe the Immigration Lawyer" is like "Joe the Plumber," then maybe he thinks he really was one.
After all, an immigration lawyer would likely be able to understand what exactly the law means when it says that only citizens and permanent residents are covered under the Obama plan. What has caused Joe Wilson to react like this, besides a serious lack of self control, is the provision in the proposed legislation that eliminates the requirement of using the "SAVE" system to verify whether someone who is an immigrant, is legally in the United States. Use of this program has stopped very few undocumented immigrants from getting public benefits, but has stopped literally thousands of U.S. citizens, mostly poor, from obtaining benefits because of their lack of accessible proof of their citizenship.
Factcheck.org has presented a short article on Seven Falsehoods About Health Care (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/). One of those applies directly to this point:
False: Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered. One Republican congressman issued
a press release claiming that "5,600,000 Illegal Aliens May Be Covered Under Obamacare (http://steveking.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a294b300-19b9-b4b1-1296-659af869849a&Region_id=&Issue_id=)," and we�ve been peppered with queries about similar claims. They�re not true. In fact, the House bill (the only bill to be formally introduced in its entirety) specifically says that no federal money would be spent on giving illegal immigrants health coverage:
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 � NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
Also, under current law, those in the country illegally don�t qualify for federal health programs. Of interest: About half of illegal immigrants have health insurance now, according to the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center, which says those who lack insurance do so principally because their employers don�t offer it."Misleading GOP Health Care Claims" (http://factcheck.org/2009/07/misleading-gop-health-care-claims/) July 23 � by Brooks Jackson, Viveca Novak, Lori Robertson and Jess Henig.
I can certainly see both sides of the debate, and, frankly, neither side is being completely honest or clear. What is quite clear, is how immigration, and our broken immigration system, keeps coming up in the context of the debate of national agenda items, such as the health care debate.
Several weeks ago I blogged on the danger that the tone of the Health care debate (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/08/healthcare-debate-and-immigration.html)had for the coming immigration reform debate. Calling the President a Liar during his speech to a joint session to Congress is Exhibit A in what we have in store for the coming debate. If Joe Wilson the Immigration Lawyer can misrepresent the consequences of legislative language as straight forward as these two particular sections, we have to be prepared for the extraordinary misrepresentations of any positive aspects of an immigration reform bill. Whether it is "amnesty," "rewarding law breakers," "open borders," "Liars," or even "destroyers of American culture" we have to understand how to phrase and present the response. Without a doubt, the response from those of us who understand the need to balance immigration reform, with security concerns, and with economic growth has to be not only vocal, but focused. We, as Real Immigration Lawyers, must know the language of the proposed legislation, we must know the myths that are out there, and we need to be vocal in our response.
Next week, more than 40 talk radio hosts are descending on Capital Hill for the FAIR (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=846)Annual Scare the Crap Out of Congress Boondoggle. The outrageous claims of the downfall of America caused by illegal immigration, along with similarly nutty myths will be presented as facts. Actual real news organization will cite the Center for Immigration Studies as a legitimate source of information. We must be prepared to call into our local radio stations, whose hosts are in D.C. next week, and be prepared to present the facts of immigration. Not by sugar coating the problems that are caused by illegal immigration, but rather by pointing out which specific laws are broken (INA 212(a)(9) anyone?) and how having a comprehensive solution can actually fix the immigration pothole in the legislative superhighway. Immigration Lawyers it is time to Stand Up and be vocal and beat back the immigration myths (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?bc=27924).
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-8070452709764975137?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/liar-what-does-health-care-have-to-do.html)
lord_labaku
10-05 06:20 PM
Guys,
These are standard trick questions. Its done quite frequently...maybe you guys dont travel frequently....but enforcing officers...like cops, security people, immigration check post officials are all trained to ask obvious, simple straightforward questions and supposed to judge your behavior, body language....not the exact answer....next time....try giving like a really long winding answer and see if they even care.....half way through your answer...they would have already stamped your passport.
These are standard trick questions. Its done quite frequently...maybe you guys dont travel frequently....but enforcing officers...like cops, security people, immigration check post officials are all trained to ask obvious, simple straightforward questions and supposed to judge your behavior, body language....not the exact answer....next time....try giving like a really long winding answer and see if they even care.....half way through your answer...they would have already stamped your passport.
more...
kirupa
10-11 04:25 AM
Thanks - fixed! :)
2010 Lindsay+lohan+2011 News in
geve
09-22 11:58 AM
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2008/tc20080915_270731.htm
There's no place like the U.S. when it comes to creating a thriving tech sector. Or is there? The U.S. still has the world's most competitive information technology industry, but its lead is slipping, according to a new study conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) for the Business Software Alliance (BSA).
The study, released Sept. 16, ranks 66 countries in six areas, including the availability of skilled labor, the "innovation friendliness" of a nation's culture, and the strength of its legal protections for intellectual property. The U.S. scored highest overall, but its rating fell from last year, and it was No. 1 in only three of the categories. "America should be proud that it's No. 1, but Americans should also be aware that it can no longer take its leadership for granted," says Robert Holleyman, president and CEO of the BSA, a Washington (D.C.)-based organization that promotes the interests of the software industry.
The EIU's analysis also weighed the quality of a nation's technology infrastructure, measuring the number of PCs per 100 people, market spending on IT hardware per 100 people, the availability of secure Internet servers per 100,000 people, and the percentage of the population with high-speed Internet access. Switzerland, ranked 11th overall, outscored the U.S. on IT infrastructure, which accounted for 20% of a country's score. The study also assessed the openness of a country's economy and the quality of government leadership on technology issues.
No. 5 in R&D Support
In a finding that's likely to vex would-be entrepreneurs, the U.S. scores even further down the list�No. 5�in support for R&D. Taiwan led the category, followed by South Korea, Japan, and Sweden. Here, the EIU scored countries based on the number of new IT-related patents, receipts from royalty payments and licensing fees, and public and private spending on R&D. Holleyman says the BSA plans to share its findings with both major Presidential campaigns and with members of Congress.
The U.S. also lags countries including Canada, Singapore, Britain, and Norway in support for IT development, which accounted for 15% of the overall score. This category covers such things as e-government initiatives, government spending on IT hardware, and access to financing.
The findings of the study will likely renew calls among both IT industry executives and politicians for the country to develop a national innovation strategy as countries such as Finland have done. "America needs a wake-up call," says John Kao, a former professor at Harvard Business School and author of Innovation Nation, a book arguing that the U.S. is losing its edge. "We don't really have a national strategy," he says. "And while I'm not a fan of top-down technocratic approach, I think that at this point in our history, having no strategy is not satisfactory."
Sounding the Alarm
As concerned as he is about U.S. competitiveness, Kao is not a favor of indexes that compare competitiveness among nations, saying they can misrepresent a country's true climate. "They're really abstractions of reality, and they often paint too rosy a picture," he says.
Kao isn't alone in calling the country's competitiveness into question. Judy Estrin, a former Cisco Systems (CSCO) executive, is sounding the alarm as well in a new book, Closing the Innovation Gap, published by BusinessWeek's parent, The McGraw-Hill Cos. (MHP). Estrin says that the lead America enjoys now is the result of work done decades ago, and that the same commitment to innovation and research that existed before has evaporated. "Innovation builds on innovation. We're reaping the benefits now of seeds planted 10, 20, and 30 years ago, and the problem is that we're not planting any more seeds," she says.
The study shows the U.S. still leads the world in the "human capital" category, which measures the number of students attending universities, a country's capacity to train scientists and engineers, and employment in the tech sector as a percentage of the overall workforce. Here too, though, the U.S. lead is threatened. While students from other countries still flock to U.S. universities to get their MBAs and PhDs, tight immigration policies are causing more of those students to go home after graduation. "Our own education system is not producing the innovators we need," Estrin says. "And we're not opening our doors to the best people, and our immigration policy is such that we have been making it harder for them to stay, and so they are going home and innovating elsewhere."
By highlighting vulnerabilities, the study doesn't just trumpet U.S. weaknesses; it points to areas where improvements can be made. "A strong tech industry is crucial to America's ability to address almost every economic and social challenge," Holleyman says in a statement. "Despite our current economic difficulties, the tech sector remains one of the primary engines of the U.S. economy. This index provides a guide to how we can keep that engine moving forward to ensure competitiveness in the future."
There's no place like the U.S. when it comes to creating a thriving tech sector. Or is there? The U.S. still has the world's most competitive information technology industry, but its lead is slipping, according to a new study conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) for the Business Software Alliance (BSA).
The study, released Sept. 16, ranks 66 countries in six areas, including the availability of skilled labor, the "innovation friendliness" of a nation's culture, and the strength of its legal protections for intellectual property. The U.S. scored highest overall, but its rating fell from last year, and it was No. 1 in only three of the categories. "America should be proud that it's No. 1, but Americans should also be aware that it can no longer take its leadership for granted," says Robert Holleyman, president and CEO of the BSA, a Washington (D.C.)-based organization that promotes the interests of the software industry.
The EIU's analysis also weighed the quality of a nation's technology infrastructure, measuring the number of PCs per 100 people, market spending on IT hardware per 100 people, the availability of secure Internet servers per 100,000 people, and the percentage of the population with high-speed Internet access. Switzerland, ranked 11th overall, outscored the U.S. on IT infrastructure, which accounted for 20% of a country's score. The study also assessed the openness of a country's economy and the quality of government leadership on technology issues.
No. 5 in R&D Support
In a finding that's likely to vex would-be entrepreneurs, the U.S. scores even further down the list�No. 5�in support for R&D. Taiwan led the category, followed by South Korea, Japan, and Sweden. Here, the EIU scored countries based on the number of new IT-related patents, receipts from royalty payments and licensing fees, and public and private spending on R&D. Holleyman says the BSA plans to share its findings with both major Presidential campaigns and with members of Congress.
The U.S. also lags countries including Canada, Singapore, Britain, and Norway in support for IT development, which accounted for 15% of the overall score. This category covers such things as e-government initiatives, government spending on IT hardware, and access to financing.
The findings of the study will likely renew calls among both IT industry executives and politicians for the country to develop a national innovation strategy as countries such as Finland have done. "America needs a wake-up call," says John Kao, a former professor at Harvard Business School and author of Innovation Nation, a book arguing that the U.S. is losing its edge. "We don't really have a national strategy," he says. "And while I'm not a fan of top-down technocratic approach, I think that at this point in our history, having no strategy is not satisfactory."
Sounding the Alarm
As concerned as he is about U.S. competitiveness, Kao is not a favor of indexes that compare competitiveness among nations, saying they can misrepresent a country's true climate. "They're really abstractions of reality, and they often paint too rosy a picture," he says.
Kao isn't alone in calling the country's competitiveness into question. Judy Estrin, a former Cisco Systems (CSCO) executive, is sounding the alarm as well in a new book, Closing the Innovation Gap, published by BusinessWeek's parent, The McGraw-Hill Cos. (MHP). Estrin says that the lead America enjoys now is the result of work done decades ago, and that the same commitment to innovation and research that existed before has evaporated. "Innovation builds on innovation. We're reaping the benefits now of seeds planted 10, 20, and 30 years ago, and the problem is that we're not planting any more seeds," she says.
The study shows the U.S. still leads the world in the "human capital" category, which measures the number of students attending universities, a country's capacity to train scientists and engineers, and employment in the tech sector as a percentage of the overall workforce. Here too, though, the U.S. lead is threatened. While students from other countries still flock to U.S. universities to get their MBAs and PhDs, tight immigration policies are causing more of those students to go home after graduation. "Our own education system is not producing the innovators we need," Estrin says. "And we're not opening our doors to the best people, and our immigration policy is such that we have been making it harder for them to stay, and so they are going home and innovating elsewhere."
By highlighting vulnerabilities, the study doesn't just trumpet U.S. weaknesses; it points to areas where improvements can be made. "A strong tech industry is crucial to America's ability to address almost every economic and social challenge," Holleyman says in a statement. "Despite our current economic difficulties, the tech sector remains one of the primary engines of the U.S. economy. This index provides a guide to how we can keep that engine moving forward to ensure competitiveness in the future."
more...
diptam
11-13 03:37 PM
Jokes apart - I-485 is the actual step of converting someone to a real Permanent Resident.
You don't have to worry about your Skill sets , loads of paperwork - you can do everything that an American can do apart from Voting. Its not a administrative processing step like I-140.
If on a higher level the politicians feel that economy is bad , umeployment is rocketing up they would do nothing to speed up 485 , rather slow it down... They don't want an extra immigrant to stand in the line for Food stamp or unemployment benefits.
Makes sense ?
Is tehre is any way for PREMIUM PROCESSING for I485 pending case ?
In my case PD is current since years the I140 is approved. Backbround check etc is over. Confirmed by various sources that my case JUST needs to be picked up by IO.
I have somebusiness trips coming up. My employer want me to find out the way to get the GC faster that way there wont be any hassle for every year renewal od AP and also EADs. and then appplying VISAs which will expire along with teh AP last date.
Along with me my employer is also fed up now:p.
Our lawyer being stupid; the employer wants me to find out the way to expedite I485. Since it is in last stages I think theer could be quicker way.
I know there is the way WOM but is there any other way?:rolleyes:
You don't have to worry about your Skill sets , loads of paperwork - you can do everything that an American can do apart from Voting. Its not a administrative processing step like I-140.
If on a higher level the politicians feel that economy is bad , umeployment is rocketing up they would do nothing to speed up 485 , rather slow it down... They don't want an extra immigrant to stand in the line for Food stamp or unemployment benefits.
Makes sense ?
Is tehre is any way for PREMIUM PROCESSING for I485 pending case ?
In my case PD is current since years the I140 is approved. Backbround check etc is over. Confirmed by various sources that my case JUST needs to be picked up by IO.
I have somebusiness trips coming up. My employer want me to find out the way to get the GC faster that way there wont be any hassle for every year renewal od AP and also EADs. and then appplying VISAs which will expire along with teh AP last date.
Along with me my employer is also fed up now:p.
Our lawyer being stupid; the employer wants me to find out the way to expedite I485. Since it is in last stages I think theer could be quicker way.
I know there is the way WOM but is there any other way?:rolleyes:
hair Lindsay+lohan+2011
guy03062
07-17 07:00 PM
Kudos to IV Core team and all of its members for this big success!!
Charge From Credit Card (ID #50578943NT35xxxxx)
Original Transaction
Date Type Status Details Amount
Jul. 17, 2007 Payment To Immigration Voice Completed Details -$50.00 USD
Status: Completed
Charge From Credit Card (ID #50578943NT35xxxxx)
Original Transaction
Date Type Status Details Amount
Jul. 17, 2007 Payment To Immigration Voice Completed Details -$50.00 USD
Status: Completed
more...
satishku_2000
05-26 07:43 PM
This new law in its current form affects everyone who is here legally whether someone is a Student or H1B
1. Some one who is a student he gets extended OPT
2. The moment student want to file for H1, his employer should be willing to shell out nearly $10,000
3. Every extension subsequently costs same amount unless they dont increase it further.
4. Some one on H1b cant do consulting.
5. Some one whose EB petition is pedning and nearing 6th year is scrwed because of the reduction in VISA numbers and repealing of AC21.
6. Employers have to shell out $10000 every year to get extension.
A spoke with at least 10 people and have them signed up for IV.
Folks , Please talk about this issue when you make weekend calls. No one from EB community is spared from this draconian bill .
Make phone calls and have your people signed up for IV
1. Some one who is a student he gets extended OPT
2. The moment student want to file for H1, his employer should be willing to shell out nearly $10,000
3. Every extension subsequently costs same amount unless they dont increase it further.
4. Some one on H1b cant do consulting.
5. Some one whose EB petition is pedning and nearing 6th year is scrwed because of the reduction in VISA numbers and repealing of AC21.
6. Employers have to shell out $10000 every year to get extension.
A spoke with at least 10 people and have them signed up for IV.
Folks , Please talk about this issue when you make weekend calls. No one from EB community is spared from this draconian bill .
Make phone calls and have your people signed up for IV
hot 2011 - Lindsay Lohan Photo
vandanaverdia
09-12 11:49 PM
seahawks:
Keep up the good work in inviting members & initiating to re-activate the WA/OR chapter!
Keep up the good work in inviting members & initiating to re-activate the WA/OR chapter!
more...
house in Lindsay+lohan+2011
ggc
08-18 01:38 PM
Thank you for your reply. It was not arrest record. My attorney says "if immigration office explicitly asks about this incident then only give that information otherwise not".
But in I485 document (page3) it has around 14 questions, during the interview do they ask all these questions verbally or do they just ask us sign this document or do they ask something else?
I heard they take oath from us, is that oath same as those questions in I485?
But in I485 document (page3) it has around 14 questions, during the interview do they ask all these questions verbally or do they just ask us sign this document or do they ask something else?
I heard they take oath from us, is that oath same as those questions in I485?
tattoo Lindsay Lohan May Avoid Jail
eb2dec2005
09-25 02:54 PM
http://www.reason.com/images/07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad.jpg
Enjoy
Good Illustration. It completely explains the plight of legal immigrants.
Enjoy
Good Illustration. It completely explains the plight of legal immigrants.
more...
pictures images Lindsay+lohan+2011+news
gckalafda
08-04 11:33 AM
My EB3 I-140 is pending and got RFE at NSC since 1st Jan 2007 and later moved Texas, I don't know wether this thred belongs to same or not. I have a PD of Dec 2003, :mad:
dresses News 2011 Necklace Lindsay
TigerAmit
09-23 05:32 PM
Is it possible that they reject my application because my both PDs are not current ?
( EB3, 10-Nov-2004 as PD Which is not current and EB2, 10-Aug-2007 as PD which is not current either as per Aug and Sept months visa dates ) ?
My Lawyer cited following in cover letter to prove that I am eligible for AOS.
"The purpose of this correspondence is to inform you of the difficulties our office is facing when submitting an I-485 application on behalf of our client Mr.X. Mr.X is the beneficiary of two (2) approved I-140 petitions. Our cover letters to the USCIS have clearly evidenced Mr.X's eligibility to apply for Adjustment of Status pursuant of 8 C.F.R. Section 204.5(e) which states in relevant part:
A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the act accords the alien the priority date of approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date.
"
At-least I want verify that based on two PD's I am eligible to file for AOS.
( EB3, 10-Nov-2004 as PD Which is not current and EB2, 10-Aug-2007 as PD which is not current either as per Aug and Sept months visa dates ) ?
My Lawyer cited following in cover letter to prove that I am eligible for AOS.
"The purpose of this correspondence is to inform you of the difficulties our office is facing when submitting an I-485 application on behalf of our client Mr.X. Mr.X is the beneficiary of two (2) approved I-140 petitions. Our cover letters to the USCIS have clearly evidenced Mr.X's eligibility to apply for Adjustment of Status pursuant of 8 C.F.R. Section 204.5(e) which states in relevant part:
A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the act accords the alien the priority date of approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date.
"
At-least I want verify that based on two PD's I am eligible to file for AOS.
more...
makeup Image: Lindsay Lohan
GreenCord
07-17 02:19 AM
Hello freinds :
I would appreciate if anyone can guide me through the situation I am in. I have been working for a company for past 4yrs. After the July bulletin was released on June 15, my employer has stopped responding to my emails, voicemails and registered mails by normal post. When I try to reach him on the telephone his voicemail message says that he is travelling and not to leave any voicemail messages but to email him and he will respond when he gets a chance. When I email him I get an out of office response. There are two other people working in the same company. I sent emails to these people and also left voicemail messages but they are also not responding.
This has put me in a very difficult situation as I dont know what is the status of my H1B application which expired recently. They were supposed to extend it. They are also not telling me the status of I140 application. My labor PD is June 2004. I would like to file the I485 application if USCIS reverses their decision.
Has anyone been throught the same or similar situation ?
This is my third employer and third GC attempt in the 11yrs I have been in this country.
I would appreciate if anyone can guide me through the situation I am in. I have been working for a company for past 4yrs. After the July bulletin was released on June 15, my employer has stopped responding to my emails, voicemails and registered mails by normal post. When I try to reach him on the telephone his voicemail message says that he is travelling and not to leave any voicemail messages but to email him and he will respond when he gets a chance. When I email him I get an out of office response. There are two other people working in the same company. I sent emails to these people and also left voicemail messages but they are also not responding.
This has put me in a very difficult situation as I dont know what is the status of my H1B application which expired recently. They were supposed to extend it. They are also not telling me the status of I140 application. My labor PD is June 2004. I would like to file the I485 application if USCIS reverses their decision.
Has anyone been throught the same or similar situation ?
This is my third employer and third GC attempt in the 11yrs I have been in this country.
girlfriend PopGossip News: Lindsay Lohan
paskal
09-17 01:45 PM
would not do to change names like that
but many organizations use a decscritor line to define themselves
eg:
American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists
The voice of clinical endocrinology
you will find many others like that...why not something like
Immigration Voice
Working for reform in legal immigration
or
A voice for legal immigrants
but many organizations use a decscritor line to define themselves
eg:
American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists
The voice of clinical endocrinology
you will find many others like that...why not something like
Immigration Voice
Working for reform in legal immigration
or
A voice for legal immigrants
hairstyles LINDSAY LOHAN 2011 NEWS
iam_amit
02-21 12:52 AM
is it safe to apply change of status from H1b to H4 while staying in US and once she gets a job can get stamping out of US as H1B with supporting docs.
H1b-H4-H1b
H1b-H4-H1b
newbie2020
05-30 07:43 AM
I replied on another Duplicate thread by the author;
Admins can someone remove the duplicate thread
Admins can someone remove the duplicate thread
lostinbeta
10-04 01:20 AM
Hopefully it works....haha :)
No comments:
Post a Comment