tanaysengar
02-22 05:15 PM
I turned out to be my I-485 approval notice!
I just received it yesterday.
Thanks all.
Freedom1.
---------------------------------------
Freedom1 - I received similar message and since I moved, I have not got any notice from USCIS. How long did it take for you to get the notice? Did the notice tell to complete any formalities at your local USCIS office?
I just received it yesterday.
Thanks all.
Freedom1.
---------------------------------------
Freedom1 - I received similar message and since I moved, I have not got any notice from USCIS. How long did it take for you to get the notice? Did the notice tell to complete any formalities at your local USCIS office?
wallpaper and the Milky Way
shantanup
04-08 12:17 PM
This question put me to shame. We are trying to become US citizens and we do not even know Havaii is a US state.
Before posting this did you even think that the ship may be crossing international waters and US immigration laws may not hold good in that region? Were you not too quick to judge one's competency?
Before posting this did you even think that the ship may be crossing international waters and US immigration laws may not hold good in that region? Were you not too quick to judge one's competency?
cdeneo
01-11 04:39 AM
Thanks so much for your feedback on this query - this is really helpful.
I am a resident of Washington state and would really appreciate any additional information you can share with me regarding eligibility and application for UC benefits here (documentation required (A# required?), other application requirements to be aware of, etc). My I-140 is approved and I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days and I am currently working on my EAD.
Thanks again for your help with this query, I look forward to hearing from you.
There are really two questions here. First, are you eligible for unemployment compensation? And second, will applying for unemployment compensation adversely impact your application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident?
The answer to the first question is controlled by the law of the particular state in which you worked and/or reside. In theory, to be eligible one must have worked long enough that an adequate amount of UC insurance was paid into the UC system, AND one must be willing and ABLE to accept new employment. The law varies from state to state with respect to whether someone in your situation qualifies as "ABLE" to accept new employment. If you let me know where you reside and work, I can try to provide further guidance as to eligibility for UC benefits.
As to the second question, (assuming your I-140 has been approved and your I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) under the INA, when your PD is reached and your I-485 is adjudicated, you are required to have the intention to take up an offer of permanent full time employment in the same or similar occupation for which your LC was granted. This is a prospective requirement, and your employment status prior to the actual grant of AOS is relevant only to the extent that it supports or undercuts your ability to prove that you have an appropriate offer of full time employment which you intend to take up. There is no requirement that you be employed while you are waiting for your priority date to become current and your I-485 to be adjudicated. However, being unemployed or employed in an entirely unrelated occupation could trigger USCIS to perform a more searching inquiry into the bona fides of the prospective AC21 qualifying job offer and your intention to accept it.
To the best of my knowledge, USCIS is not notified when an AOS applicant applies for UC. Similarly, I am not aware of any cases where an UC claim triggered an RFE. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to act on the assumption that USCIS is aware of UC claims and be well prepared to prove one's intention to take up a bona fide offer of AC 21 qualifying employment once your PD is reached.
I am a resident of Washington state and would really appreciate any additional information you can share with me regarding eligibility and application for UC benefits here (documentation required (A# required?), other application requirements to be aware of, etc). My I-140 is approved and I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days and I am currently working on my EAD.
Thanks again for your help with this query, I look forward to hearing from you.
There are really two questions here. First, are you eligible for unemployment compensation? And second, will applying for unemployment compensation adversely impact your application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident?
The answer to the first question is controlled by the law of the particular state in which you worked and/or reside. In theory, to be eligible one must have worked long enough that an adequate amount of UC insurance was paid into the UC system, AND one must be willing and ABLE to accept new employment. The law varies from state to state with respect to whether someone in your situation qualifies as "ABLE" to accept new employment. If you let me know where you reside and work, I can try to provide further guidance as to eligibility for UC benefits.
As to the second question, (assuming your I-140 has been approved and your I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) under the INA, when your PD is reached and your I-485 is adjudicated, you are required to have the intention to take up an offer of permanent full time employment in the same or similar occupation for which your LC was granted. This is a prospective requirement, and your employment status prior to the actual grant of AOS is relevant only to the extent that it supports or undercuts your ability to prove that you have an appropriate offer of full time employment which you intend to take up. There is no requirement that you be employed while you are waiting for your priority date to become current and your I-485 to be adjudicated. However, being unemployed or employed in an entirely unrelated occupation could trigger USCIS to perform a more searching inquiry into the bona fides of the prospective AC21 qualifying job offer and your intention to accept it.
To the best of my knowledge, USCIS is not notified when an AOS applicant applies for UC. Similarly, I am not aware of any cases where an UC claim triggered an RFE. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to act on the assumption that USCIS is aware of UC claims and be well prepared to prove one's intention to take up a bona fide offer of AC 21 qualifying employment once your PD is reached.
2011 in the Milky Way#39;s center
iyera
03-26 07:47 PM
Hi, I want to go from h1 to h4 to h1 all within 1 year, plus I have a US Master's degree . Please let me know if this is possible without falling under the H1B cap.
I appreciate your help. Thanks.
IndiaXYZ,
Hi! I am contemplating doing something similar and have read on multiple forums that it won't be subject to the cap if you have been counted once in the past 6 years. Do you/anyone happen to know the aprroximate processing time for an H1B-H4 change of status application? Thanks in advance.
I appreciate your help. Thanks.
IndiaXYZ,
Hi! I am contemplating doing something similar and have read on multiple forums that it won't be subject to the cap if you have been counted once in the past 6 years. Do you/anyone happen to know the aprroximate processing time for an H1B-H4 change of status application? Thanks in advance.
more...
tigerlibra
09-30 09:30 AM
Yes, I am a USC, but the Fiance Visa would mean she has to go back to China and wait.
cheg
07-13 04:24 AM
this forum is amazing. people are helping each other and trying to make things seem a bit brighter. good luck to everyone!:)
more...
Green.Tech
09-17 12:02 PM
if you can find such a company...nothing like it!
but how many have such flexible policies..;-)
I agree! Not many firms out there that are flexible in this case.
but how many have such flexible policies..;-)
I agree! Not many firms out there that are flexible in this case.
2010 Peter Fasano#39;s Milky Way
priderock
08-16 12:29 PM
yes it will be funny if any of Exceed employee working in backlog center is also affcted by backlog of his labor application there.
If there are any, they must have talked to some one and got it approved by now, because there is no order in approvals any way... :)
If there are any, they must have talked to some one and got it approved by now, because there is no order in approvals any way... :)
more...
gcseeker2002
11-12 02:54 PM
http://mexico.usembassy.gov/eng/evisas_third_country.html
It is only for those people who are changing visa types, not for renewal stampings.
It is only for those people who are changing visa types, not for renewal stampings.
hair Solar System Milky Way
whitecollarslave
01-23 01:37 PM
$1000 is a lot for Premium Processing and VSC is profiting a lot from this. They are running a business for sure....
Its only extensions which are a long time.
USCIS is self-funded from application fees. They don't get any other funding as far as I know. So, sure they are running a business.
I know its not cheap, but atleast there is a way. I have been in this long enough to know times when it took a long time without an option of premium processing.
You can always make your employer pay for the fees.
Its only extensions which are a long time.
USCIS is self-funded from application fees. They don't get any other funding as far as I know. So, sure they are running a business.
I know its not cheap, but atleast there is a way. I have been in this long enough to know times when it took a long time without an option of premium processing.
You can always make your employer pay for the fees.
more...
idreamofgc
06-02 09:18 PM
there is no 10,000 source but i heard people say that..
are you also their client..are you audited..my audit is on business
necessity and recruitment..
does this mean we are screwed...or will they do something..they are
big law firm..why would we suffer when one lawyer in the big firm makes
stupid mistake
My application has been in audit since July 2007.
I doubt they will audit 10,000 cases (as such they don't enough have resources to work on). If they do, then its a massive F** up on part of Frago-moron.
are you also their client..are you audited..my audit is on business
necessity and recruitment..
does this mean we are screwed...or will they do something..they are
big law firm..why would we suffer when one lawyer in the big firm makes
stupid mistake
My application has been in audit since July 2007.
I doubt they will audit 10,000 cases (as such they don't enough have resources to work on). If they do, then its a massive F** up on part of Frago-moron.
hot in our Milky Way galaxy,
anuh1
03-30 08:12 AM
Congrats man. I am still waiting for mine. All the best for your perm.
more...
house Infant Stars in the Milky Way
newuser
05-14 04:40 PM
Thanks for the update and we are still here to support the efforts of IV.
tattoo Milky Way iPhone Wallpapers amp;
pd_recapturing
12-02 07:25 PM
Thanks for sharing this news. Here is the link (http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?p=25832).
This news is very encouraging and thanks to Ron Gotcher for publishing it on his web site. Guys, please continue sending the letters, if you have not done it so far.
We are working on 2nd phase of our campaign.
This news is very encouraging and thanks to Ron Gotcher for publishing it on his web site. Guys, please continue sending the letters, if you have not done it so far.
We are working on 2nd phase of our campaign.
more...
pictures Our Milky Way Galaxy..
saketkapur
07-27 05:24 PM
ImmInfo Newsletter "Unlawful presence" myths and realities (http://imminfo.com/Newsletter/2009-7/unlawful_presence.html)
Unlawful Presence: Myths and Realities
Ron Gotcher
Recently, the USCIS released a new policy memorandum on the subject of �unlawful presence.� Because of its length and the poor quality of the writing, there has been a great deal of confusion resulting from it. We would like to clarify a few of the more egregious misunderstandings that have taken root as a result of this memorandum.
A person who applies for adjustment of status while in lawful status, and thereafter allows his or her nonimmigrant status to expire is not going to be deported.
The new memo makes it clear that when someone applies for adjustment of status, they are thereafter present with the permission of the Secretary of DHS. As such, they do not accrue unlawful presence even if their nonimmigrant status expires. While technically they may be subject to removal, the CIS does not attempt to remove them for a very practical reason. If the immigration service institutes removal proceedings against someone who is eligible for adjustment of status, that person will simply renew their application before the immigration judge. Immigration will have wasted a great deal of time and energy and accomplished nothing. There is no possible reason that would compel the immigration authorities to change their current policy and begin trying to remove people with valid pending adjustment of status applications.
Nonimmigrants are not required to maintain their status after filing for adjustment of status.
Some writers have said that AOS applicants must continue to maintain their nonimmigrant status after filing for adjustment of status. They are wrong. In many cases, attempting to do so would involve visa fraud and render the applicant ineligible to adjust status. Certain nonimmigrant categories, such as B, F, J, and M are �single intent� categories. If someone who is actively in the process of immigrating to the United States attempted to extend status in a category where they are required by law to have a good faith intent to leave the United States and return to their home country to resume their residence there, that would be an act of fraud. You can swear on the one hand that you intend to return to your home country immediately upon the expiration of your nonimmigrant status, while on the other continue to request permanent resident status in the United States. Filing this type of application would do positive harm to your case.
It is not necessary to maintain H1B status after filing for adjustment of status, and in many cases doing causes harm to the applicant.
There is really only one valid reason for an adjustment of status applicant to maintain H1B nonimmigrant status after filing for AOS. That is the situation where the H1B has a spouse or child who has not filed for AOS and requires an H4 visa in order to remain in the United States. Other than this situation, there is no valid reason for someone to try to maintain H1B status after filing for AOS.
Maintenance of H-1B status is not without cost. The CIS filing fees are $320, plus $500 for the anti-fraud fee it is a first filing (such as an employer transfer), and $750 to $1,500 for the ACWIA fee. This does not include attorney�s fees. There are two other �costs� that must be counted as well. If you travel, you must have a valid H-1B visa to re-enter. This means that you may have expend time and money renewing your H visa. Also, with an H visa, you may not accept work from anyone other than your petitioning employer. Otherwise, you are in violation of your H status.
Historically, I�ve heard three main arguments I�ve in favor of using H-1B. First, there is the �just in case� argument. To me, this falls into the �monsters under the bed� or fear of the dark kind of superstitious dread argument. �I don�t know what might happen, but I want to keep my H-1B just in case.� I�ve always felt that if you can�t articulate the reason for doing something, it isn�t a very good reason.
The second reason is a concern that if the applicant�s I-485 is denied, the applicant can revert to H-1B status. I believe this to be a specious argument also. Most I-485 denials result from I-140 denials. If your I-140 has been approved, the odds of your I-485 being denied drop to almost zero. The two remaining reasons for I-485 denials are status violations prior to filing and fraud. Both of these reasons impact H-1B validity as well and if an I-485 is denied for either reason, it is doubtful that the applicant would be allowed to resume H-1B status.
The third reason, and in my opinion the only valid reason, arises in unusual situations where the principal applicant has applied for adjustment of status but his or her spouse hasn�t. In such cases, it is essential that the principal applicant maintain H-1B status so that the spouse remains eligible for H-4 status.
There is one other important consideration with respect to maintaining H-1B status while applying for adjustment of status (AOS). I�ve seen situations involving individuals who elected to stay in H status while applying for AOS and traveled abroad using their H visas and were laid off unexpectedly while abroad, or other saw their H petitioner go out of business suddenly. All were left high and dry overseas with no way to return to the US. If they tried to use their H visas, they would be guilty of visa fraud at entry and thus ineligible for adjustment of status.
Finally, AOS applicants who have given up H status should understand that there is nothing to prevent them from re-applying for H classification should something go disastrously wrong with their AOS application. If the applicant is still eligible for H classification, there is nothing to prevent them from re-acquiring it later.
Employment authorization documents (EAD) are presently valid for one year at a time, unless you have an approved I-140, in which case they will issue them for two years. Advance parole (AP) documents are presently valid for only one year. The EAD/AP combination provides an applicant with a simple, inexpensive alternative to trying to maintain H status while applying for AOS. More importantly, EADs give an applicant job flexibility. With an EAD, an AOS applicant who wishes to exercise his or her right to job portability need only show an EAD card in order to accept new employment immediately. Similarly, an applicant who travels and uses AP as a re-entry document need never bother with having to make an appointment and apply for a new visa while abroad.
Finally, the CIS is now looking closely at the issue of unauthorized employment after filing for AOS. With an EAD, as long as you keep it current, it is impossible for you to engage in unauthorized employment. With an H1B, you are very strictly constrained by the LCA and H petition terms. If you or your employer deviate in any way, you risk violating your H status and thereafter engaging in unauthorized employment. The EAD path is far safer.
Ron Gotcher
Copyright � 2009 The Gotcher Law Group, PC - All Rights Reserved
Unlawful Presence: Myths and Realities
Ron Gotcher
Recently, the USCIS released a new policy memorandum on the subject of �unlawful presence.� Because of its length and the poor quality of the writing, there has been a great deal of confusion resulting from it. We would like to clarify a few of the more egregious misunderstandings that have taken root as a result of this memorandum.
A person who applies for adjustment of status while in lawful status, and thereafter allows his or her nonimmigrant status to expire is not going to be deported.
The new memo makes it clear that when someone applies for adjustment of status, they are thereafter present with the permission of the Secretary of DHS. As such, they do not accrue unlawful presence even if their nonimmigrant status expires. While technically they may be subject to removal, the CIS does not attempt to remove them for a very practical reason. If the immigration service institutes removal proceedings against someone who is eligible for adjustment of status, that person will simply renew their application before the immigration judge. Immigration will have wasted a great deal of time and energy and accomplished nothing. There is no possible reason that would compel the immigration authorities to change their current policy and begin trying to remove people with valid pending adjustment of status applications.
Nonimmigrants are not required to maintain their status after filing for adjustment of status.
Some writers have said that AOS applicants must continue to maintain their nonimmigrant status after filing for adjustment of status. They are wrong. In many cases, attempting to do so would involve visa fraud and render the applicant ineligible to adjust status. Certain nonimmigrant categories, such as B, F, J, and M are �single intent� categories. If someone who is actively in the process of immigrating to the United States attempted to extend status in a category where they are required by law to have a good faith intent to leave the United States and return to their home country to resume their residence there, that would be an act of fraud. You can swear on the one hand that you intend to return to your home country immediately upon the expiration of your nonimmigrant status, while on the other continue to request permanent resident status in the United States. Filing this type of application would do positive harm to your case.
It is not necessary to maintain H1B status after filing for adjustment of status, and in many cases doing causes harm to the applicant.
There is really only one valid reason for an adjustment of status applicant to maintain H1B nonimmigrant status after filing for AOS. That is the situation where the H1B has a spouse or child who has not filed for AOS and requires an H4 visa in order to remain in the United States. Other than this situation, there is no valid reason for someone to try to maintain H1B status after filing for AOS.
Maintenance of H-1B status is not without cost. The CIS filing fees are $320, plus $500 for the anti-fraud fee it is a first filing (such as an employer transfer), and $750 to $1,500 for the ACWIA fee. This does not include attorney�s fees. There are two other �costs� that must be counted as well. If you travel, you must have a valid H-1B visa to re-enter. This means that you may have expend time and money renewing your H visa. Also, with an H visa, you may not accept work from anyone other than your petitioning employer. Otherwise, you are in violation of your H status.
Historically, I�ve heard three main arguments I�ve in favor of using H-1B. First, there is the �just in case� argument. To me, this falls into the �monsters under the bed� or fear of the dark kind of superstitious dread argument. �I don�t know what might happen, but I want to keep my H-1B just in case.� I�ve always felt that if you can�t articulate the reason for doing something, it isn�t a very good reason.
The second reason is a concern that if the applicant�s I-485 is denied, the applicant can revert to H-1B status. I believe this to be a specious argument also. Most I-485 denials result from I-140 denials. If your I-140 has been approved, the odds of your I-485 being denied drop to almost zero. The two remaining reasons for I-485 denials are status violations prior to filing and fraud. Both of these reasons impact H-1B validity as well and if an I-485 is denied for either reason, it is doubtful that the applicant would be allowed to resume H-1B status.
The third reason, and in my opinion the only valid reason, arises in unusual situations where the principal applicant has applied for adjustment of status but his or her spouse hasn�t. In such cases, it is essential that the principal applicant maintain H-1B status so that the spouse remains eligible for H-4 status.
There is one other important consideration with respect to maintaining H-1B status while applying for adjustment of status (AOS). I�ve seen situations involving individuals who elected to stay in H status while applying for AOS and traveled abroad using their H visas and were laid off unexpectedly while abroad, or other saw their H petitioner go out of business suddenly. All were left high and dry overseas with no way to return to the US. If they tried to use their H visas, they would be guilty of visa fraud at entry and thus ineligible for adjustment of status.
Finally, AOS applicants who have given up H status should understand that there is nothing to prevent them from re-applying for H classification should something go disastrously wrong with their AOS application. If the applicant is still eligible for H classification, there is nothing to prevent them from re-acquiring it later.
Employment authorization documents (EAD) are presently valid for one year at a time, unless you have an approved I-140, in which case they will issue them for two years. Advance parole (AP) documents are presently valid for only one year. The EAD/AP combination provides an applicant with a simple, inexpensive alternative to trying to maintain H status while applying for AOS. More importantly, EADs give an applicant job flexibility. With an EAD, an AOS applicant who wishes to exercise his or her right to job portability need only show an EAD card in order to accept new employment immediately. Similarly, an applicant who travels and uses AP as a re-entry document need never bother with having to make an appointment and apply for a new visa while abroad.
Finally, the CIS is now looking closely at the issue of unauthorized employment after filing for AOS. With an EAD, as long as you keep it current, it is impossible for you to engage in unauthorized employment. With an H1B, you are very strictly constrained by the LCA and H petition terms. If you or your employer deviate in any way, you risk violating your H status and thereafter engaging in unauthorized employment. The EAD path is far safer.
Ron Gotcher
Copyright � 2009 The Gotcher Law Group, PC - All Rights Reserved
dresses Bok Globules in the Milky Way
Sunx_2004
10-04 10:32 PM
Sorry for opening a new thread, Please point me to the thread if this issue is already addressed in some other thread and delete this thread.
I filed my I-485 in July, Still waiting for receipts, Now my company got acquired by another company. My questions are-
Any actions required from my side? What will happen to my I-485 which is already filed, Do I need to re-file with new company?
If I get EAD in next few weeks can I use that EAD after 6 months of filing I485?
Thanks
I filed my I-485 in July, Still waiting for receipts, Now my company got acquired by another company. My questions are-
Any actions required from my side? What will happen to my I-485 which is already filed, Do I need to re-file with new company?
If I get EAD in next few weeks can I use that EAD after 6 months of filing I485?
Thanks
more...
makeup Milky Way, Star Bright, 1998,
Abhinaym
10-05 10:56 AM
I doubt if it'll be a GC process for illegals. I guess at best that would be a temp visa.
If it is a GC, then there's no way they can give illegals preference over legals. In this case we're a little screwed since the lines will be filled with people (who can prove they've been longer than us)
If it's a temp visa, we're still screwed - because of the additional processing, they may not process GCs as fast (!) as they're doing now.
That's my speculation so far.
If it is a GC, then there's no way they can give illegals preference over legals. In this case we're a little screwed since the lines will be filled with people (who can prove they've been longer than us)
If it's a temp visa, we're still screwed - because of the additional processing, they may not process GCs as fast (!) as they're doing now.
That's my speculation so far.
girlfriend Solar System Milky Way
lifesucksinUS
07-13 12:56 PM
Wow Wow Wow.
Watch out..Before typing think.
You are the Administrator of the site!!!
I do understand the wild posts though
why ?????whats wrong with what the administrator has written..
Watch out..Before typing think.
You are the Administrator of the site!!!
I do understand the wild posts though
why ?????whats wrong with what the administrator has written..
hairstyles On The Way To the Milky Way
luckylavs
07-17 04:44 PM
what is this ?
All EB based is displayed as U. Is there no annoucement ?
All EB based is displayed as U. Is there no annoucement ?
vverma17
08-19 06:44 PM
Jingi I might not be able to help you, but I am also expecting RFE for my wife. Just anxious to know what was you RD and at which Service center.
learning01
02-25 05:03 PM
This is the most compelling piece I read about why this country should do more for scientists and engineers who are on temporary work visas. Read it till the end and enjoy.
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
No comments:
Post a Comment