waitnwatch
07-13 11:30 AM
Reading through this thread I find this intense debate about the value and intentions of Murthy's letter.
Let's first deal with the value part: This letter could be from any one of us or anybody else from Timbuktu. Why does this letter have any special significance except that the DHS secretary may read it because Murthy and the secretary are alumni of the same institution (see how carefully this part is added to the letter for our consumption). Now this feeds into the intention part. Even if Murthy wrote a letter to the DHS Secretary why did she have to publicize it on her website (except for the gullible among us to take notice). Generally publicized letters have value if they are from some influential policy maker or lawmaker. In this case Murthy is neither and so her letter does not add or subtract any value to this debate. So we are left with the question of who gains by publicizing this letter. Your guess is as good as mine.
Ultimately I am left wondering why this thread was started in the first place except to garner cheap publicity. Do we really have so much time on our hands?
Let's first deal with the value part: This letter could be from any one of us or anybody else from Timbuktu. Why does this letter have any special significance except that the DHS secretary may read it because Murthy and the secretary are alumni of the same institution (see how carefully this part is added to the letter for our consumption). Now this feeds into the intention part. Even if Murthy wrote a letter to the DHS Secretary why did she have to publicize it on her website (except for the gullible among us to take notice). Generally publicized letters have value if they are from some influential policy maker or lawmaker. In this case Murthy is neither and so her letter does not add or subtract any value to this debate. So we are left with the question of who gains by publicizing this letter. Your guess is as good as mine.
Ultimately I am left wondering why this thread was started in the first place except to garner cheap publicity. Do we really have so much time on our hands?
wallpaper victoria beckham royal wedding outfit. Victoria wore a dress of her
mirage
02-03 10:38 AM
I spoke to Congresswoman Zoe Logfren's staff few days, back and they specifically pointed out on the country quota issue. I'm sure lot of lawmakers are aware about this issue, I wan to give it a try, guys who think it is an unfair system, please PM me, this is my own initiative so no there is no arguement on whether IV supports this or not...
prioritydate
12-20 07:42 PM
<If anything like out of status or unauthorized employed happened before your last legal entry into USA (whether is more than 180 days or less than 180 days) IT DOES NOT MATTER and you can adjust status. You are fine. What's important is that "out of status" and "unauthorized stay" periods must not happen after you last entered USA and after you filed your 485 - and if it does happen, then it should be less than 180 days.>
So, logiclife, going with your above statement, I don't have any problem with my adustment of status? My last legal entry to the U.S was Mar, 2006. I applied for AOS in July, 2007. Can you point to any USCIS memo/documents stating the above facts? I was out of status in the year 2001 (more than 180 days).
So, logiclife, going with your above statement, I don't have any problem with my adustment of status? My last legal entry to the U.S was Mar, 2006. I applied for AOS in July, 2007. Can you point to any USCIS memo/documents stating the above facts? I was out of status in the year 2001 (more than 180 days).
2011 hairstyles Victoria Beckham
aadimanav
09-10 10:17 PM
Updates from Greg Siskind's
[Update] My report below is not correct. The initial report I received on the markup was not correct and the markup process was not competed today. I believe work is going to continue tomorrow or Friday and hopefully this will be done by the weekend. Apologies.]
[Update] My report below is not correct. The initial report I received on the markup was not correct and the markup process was not competed today. I believe work is going to continue tomorrow or Friday and hopefully this will be done by the weekend. Apologies.]
more...
ajthakur
07-14 06:44 PM
I dont remember that. I saw my online profile with USCIS just now. There is a LUD for yesterday 07/13/2008 on my 140 approved in 2006.
Do you see any LUD change on your I-140 after you changed employers?
Do you see any LUD change on your I-140 after you changed employers?
gc_rip
09-10 12:01 PM
Hi IV team, and all,
Can we come up with certain organized campaign, just like the flower campaign back in Aug 07? I am sure if we have such campaign, the participation would definitely be more.
Ofcourse we need to choose a right time and right message to put through.
Please share your ideas.
Thanks!
Can we come up with certain organized campaign, just like the flower campaign back in Aug 07? I am sure if we have such campaign, the participation would definitely be more.
Ofcourse we need to choose a right time and right message to put through.
Please share your ideas.
Thanks!
more...
Jerrome
07-12 05:28 PM
I feel this move is to benefit EB-2 China, Since the EB1 and EB2 overflow are evenly distributed across china and india, keeping PD with 2004 would be a loss for china and gain for India. So by keeping 2006 June, USCIS will have enough visa numbers for China . India's share will be consumed by 2004 and 2005 applicants.
Even if India's PD is going to be in 2006 mid, this would result some adhoc or lucky one in 2006 getting GC than a majority of applicants. PD for india would move back to 2004 or 2005 by october 08.
If USCIS follows the same rule again then by next year end the PD for India will move.
This is my guess.
Even if India's PD is going to be in 2006 mid, this would result some adhoc or lucky one in 2006 getting GC than a majority of applicants. PD for india would move back to 2004 or 2005 by october 08.
If USCIS follows the same rule again then by next year end the PD for India will move.
This is my guess.
2010 and Victoria Beckham,
Jaime
09-11 03:54 PM
For the first time in its history, the U.S. faces the prospect of a reverse brain drain. New research by my team at the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University shows that more than 1 million highly skilled professionals such as engineers, scientists, doctors, researchers, and their families are in line for a yearly allotment of only around 120,000 permanent-resident visas for employment-based principals and their families in the three main employment visa categories (EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3). These individuals entered the country legally to study or to work. They contributed to U.S. economic growth and global competitiveness. Now we've set the stage for them to return to countries such as India and China, where the economies are booming and their skills are in great demand. U.S. businesses large and small stand to lose critical talent, and workers who have gained valuable experience and knowledge of American industry may become potential competitors.
The problem is simple. There aren't enough permanent-resident visas available each year for skilled workers and their families. And there is a limit of fewer than 10,000 visas that can be issued to immigrants from any single country. So countries with the largest populations such as India and China are allocated the same number of visas as Iceland and Mongolia.
Visa Delays Deprive U.S. of Talent The result is that wait times for employment visas currently stretch from four to six years for immigrants from countries such as India and China, and all indications are that these delays will get longer. Based on a 2003 study of new legal immigrants to the U.S. called the New Immigrant Survey, we estimate that in 2003, about 1 in 3 professionals who had been through the immigration process either planned to leave the U.S. or were uncertain about remaining. Media reports and other anecdotal evidence indicate that many skilled workers have indeed begun to return home.
Much of the current public debate on immigration centers on concerns over low-skilled immigrants entering the U.S. illegally. We do need to develop fair policies to deal with this problem. But skilled immigrants who enter the U.S. legally are a different issue. Professor Richard Devon of Pennsylvania State University estimates that in the U.S. about $200,000 is invested in a child by the time they gain a bachelor's degree in engineering. That means that the U.S. gains billions of dollars in benefit from educated professionals who leave other countries to come here. And we lose billions when they return home. Additionally, we end up training highly skilled workers in our markets, technology, and way of doing business.
Consider this: Earlier research by my team found that more than half of the engineering and technology companies started in Silicon Valley and a quarter of those started nationwide from 1995 to 2006 had immigrant founders. These companies employed 450,000 workers and generated $52 billion in revenue in 2006. Their founders tended to be very highly educated in science, technology, math, and engineering-related disciplines, with 96% of them holding bachelor's degrees and 75% holding master's degrees or PhDs (see BusinessWeek.com, 6/11/07, "Immigrants: Key U.S. Business Founders").
Patents: Evidence of Entrepreneurial Activity We also uncovered some puzzling data on patent filings. When we analyzed the international patent database maintained by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), we found that 1 in every 4 patent applications from the U.S. in 2006 listed a foreign national residing in the U.S. as an inventor. This number had increased threefold over an eight-year period and didn't take into account inventors who had become U.S. citizens before applying for a patent.
We realized that these foreign-national inventors were not likely to be from the same immigrant group that was founding high-tech companies. They were likely to be PhD students and employees of U.S. corporations who are in the U.S. on temporary visas. Temporary-visa holders can't easily start their own companies�their visas require them to work full time for the company that sponsored them.
For our new research, we reanalyzed the WIPO patent database to look at which immigrant groups and corporations were applying for the most patents. To understand the foreign-national data, we examined extensive information published by the Homeland Security Dept., the Labor Dept., and the State Dept. We also reviewed the New Immigrant Survey to gain insight into the immigration process and to examine the potential that, even after becoming permanent residents, skilled immigrants might return home.
Here is what we found:
� Foreign nationals contributed to more than half of the international patents filed by companies such as Qualcomm (QCOM) (72%), Merck (MRK) (65%), General Electric (GE) (64%), Siemens (SI) (63%), and Cisco (CSCO) (60%). Their contributions were relatively small at Microsoft (MSFT) (3%) and General Motors (GM) (6%). Surprisingly, 41% of the patents filed by the U.S. government had foreign nationals listed as inventors.
� Foreign nationals contributed to 25.6% of all U.S. international patent applications in 2006, but the numbers were much higher in several states such as New Jersey (37%), California (36%), and Massachusetts (32%).
� In 2006, 16.8% of international patent applications from the U.S. had inventors with Chinese names and 36% of these (or 5.5% of the total) were foreign nationals. Similarly, 13.7% had Indian names and 40% (or 6.2% of the total) were foreign nationals.
� Both Indian and Chinese inventors tended to file most patents in the fields of medicine, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and electronics.
Our analysis of the immigration data produced the most startling results.
"Immigration Limbo" We estimate that, as of Sept. 30, 2006, there were 500,040 individuals in the main employment-based visa categories and an additional 555,044 family members in line for permanent-resident status in the U.S. An additional 126,421 with job offers were waiting abroad. In total, there were 1,181,505 educated and skilled professionals waiting to gain legal permanent-resident status.
In the 2005-06 academic year, there were 259,717 international students in the U.S. There were an additional 38,096 in practical training�many of these are PhD researchers.
One thing is certain: If we wait five years to fix immigration policy, the unskilled workers will still be here, but the skilled workers who are in "immigration limbo" will be long gone. Our loss will be the gain of countries we are increasingly competing with in the new global landscape.
The problem is simple. There aren't enough permanent-resident visas available each year for skilled workers and their families. And there is a limit of fewer than 10,000 visas that can be issued to immigrants from any single country. So countries with the largest populations such as India and China are allocated the same number of visas as Iceland and Mongolia.
Visa Delays Deprive U.S. of Talent The result is that wait times for employment visas currently stretch from four to six years for immigrants from countries such as India and China, and all indications are that these delays will get longer. Based on a 2003 study of new legal immigrants to the U.S. called the New Immigrant Survey, we estimate that in 2003, about 1 in 3 professionals who had been through the immigration process either planned to leave the U.S. or were uncertain about remaining. Media reports and other anecdotal evidence indicate that many skilled workers have indeed begun to return home.
Much of the current public debate on immigration centers on concerns over low-skilled immigrants entering the U.S. illegally. We do need to develop fair policies to deal with this problem. But skilled immigrants who enter the U.S. legally are a different issue. Professor Richard Devon of Pennsylvania State University estimates that in the U.S. about $200,000 is invested in a child by the time they gain a bachelor's degree in engineering. That means that the U.S. gains billions of dollars in benefit from educated professionals who leave other countries to come here. And we lose billions when they return home. Additionally, we end up training highly skilled workers in our markets, technology, and way of doing business.
Consider this: Earlier research by my team found that more than half of the engineering and technology companies started in Silicon Valley and a quarter of those started nationwide from 1995 to 2006 had immigrant founders. These companies employed 450,000 workers and generated $52 billion in revenue in 2006. Their founders tended to be very highly educated in science, technology, math, and engineering-related disciplines, with 96% of them holding bachelor's degrees and 75% holding master's degrees or PhDs (see BusinessWeek.com, 6/11/07, "Immigrants: Key U.S. Business Founders").
Patents: Evidence of Entrepreneurial Activity We also uncovered some puzzling data on patent filings. When we analyzed the international patent database maintained by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), we found that 1 in every 4 patent applications from the U.S. in 2006 listed a foreign national residing in the U.S. as an inventor. This number had increased threefold over an eight-year period and didn't take into account inventors who had become U.S. citizens before applying for a patent.
We realized that these foreign-national inventors were not likely to be from the same immigrant group that was founding high-tech companies. They were likely to be PhD students and employees of U.S. corporations who are in the U.S. on temporary visas. Temporary-visa holders can't easily start their own companies�their visas require them to work full time for the company that sponsored them.
For our new research, we reanalyzed the WIPO patent database to look at which immigrant groups and corporations were applying for the most patents. To understand the foreign-national data, we examined extensive information published by the Homeland Security Dept., the Labor Dept., and the State Dept. We also reviewed the New Immigrant Survey to gain insight into the immigration process and to examine the potential that, even after becoming permanent residents, skilled immigrants might return home.
Here is what we found:
� Foreign nationals contributed to more than half of the international patents filed by companies such as Qualcomm (QCOM) (72%), Merck (MRK) (65%), General Electric (GE) (64%), Siemens (SI) (63%), and Cisco (CSCO) (60%). Their contributions were relatively small at Microsoft (MSFT) (3%) and General Motors (GM) (6%). Surprisingly, 41% of the patents filed by the U.S. government had foreign nationals listed as inventors.
� Foreign nationals contributed to 25.6% of all U.S. international patent applications in 2006, but the numbers were much higher in several states such as New Jersey (37%), California (36%), and Massachusetts (32%).
� In 2006, 16.8% of international patent applications from the U.S. had inventors with Chinese names and 36% of these (or 5.5% of the total) were foreign nationals. Similarly, 13.7% had Indian names and 40% (or 6.2% of the total) were foreign nationals.
� Both Indian and Chinese inventors tended to file most patents in the fields of medicine, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and electronics.
Our analysis of the immigration data produced the most startling results.
"Immigration Limbo" We estimate that, as of Sept. 30, 2006, there were 500,040 individuals in the main employment-based visa categories and an additional 555,044 family members in line for permanent-resident status in the U.S. An additional 126,421 with job offers were waiting abroad. In total, there were 1,181,505 educated and skilled professionals waiting to gain legal permanent-resident status.
In the 2005-06 academic year, there were 259,717 international students in the U.S. There were an additional 38,096 in practical training�many of these are PhD researchers.
One thing is certain: If we wait five years to fix immigration policy, the unskilled workers will still be here, but the skilled workers who are in "immigration limbo" will be long gone. Our loss will be the gain of countries we are increasingly competing with in the new global landscape.
more...
BharatPremi
03-17 02:30 PM
Thanks
What I am saying is spill over from ROW goes to EB2 first. It does not split to EB2 and EB3 evenly. So more people from EB2 gets visa granted and thus people who joined EB2 bandwagon from EB3 and had earlier PD, they get Visa quickly. Now generally this spillover does not go to EB3 from EB2 having high demand from EB2 and thus EB3 get stuck with conventional numbers with 7% country limit and thus EB3 numbers move slowly. But if that spillover happens for both EB3 and 2 equally than EB3 can also move little bit quickly which is not the case. Thus shortening the queue by switching over to EB2 does not give full advantage to remained lot of EB3.
What I am saying is spill over from ROW goes to EB2 first. It does not split to EB2 and EB3 evenly. So more people from EB2 gets visa granted and thus people who joined EB2 bandwagon from EB3 and had earlier PD, they get Visa quickly. Now generally this spillover does not go to EB3 from EB2 having high demand from EB2 and thus EB3 get stuck with conventional numbers with 7% country limit and thus EB3 numbers move slowly. But if that spillover happens for both EB3 and 2 equally than EB3 can also move little bit quickly which is not the case. Thus shortening the queue by switching over to EB2 does not give full advantage to remained lot of EB3.
hair victoria beckham royal wedding outfit. According to royal wedding
vin13
03-09 12:59 PM
Please do not start the may prediction right now. :rolleyes:
more...
pappu
02-04 02:27 PM
Some questions to those who are supporting country cap.
Why not put a country cap on foreign students� visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on H1B visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on labor certifications?
Why not put a country cap on I-140s?
Why not impose a country cap at the port of entry?
Why not put a country cap on visitors� visas?
Why not put a country cap on business visas?
Why not put a country cap on US trade with other countries?
Why not put a country cap on amount of US $ reserves that each country can have?
Why not put a country cap on children that foreigners in the US can bear?
Why not put a country cap on the foreigners� earnings in the US?
.
.
.
And the list can go on.
Putting country cap on greens cards serves a hidden racist agenda of not letting the people of one particular ethnic group grow in number and become strong.
Big question:
Why not put a country cap on the CIR for all undocumented?
What are the reasons for not doing that?
Lawmakers give a rationale of diversity as the reason for country caps. Why is the reason for diversity not relevant for undocumented? I am sure there are undocumented from all countries and not just one country?
Why not put a country cap on foreign students� visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on H1B visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on labor certifications?
Why not put a country cap on I-140s?
Why not impose a country cap at the port of entry?
Why not put a country cap on visitors� visas?
Why not put a country cap on business visas?
Why not put a country cap on US trade with other countries?
Why not put a country cap on amount of US $ reserves that each country can have?
Why not put a country cap on children that foreigners in the US can bear?
Why not put a country cap on the foreigners� earnings in the US?
.
.
.
And the list can go on.
Putting country cap on greens cards serves a hidden racist agenda of not letting the people of one particular ethnic group grow in number and become strong.
Big question:
Why not put a country cap on the CIR for all undocumented?
What are the reasons for not doing that?
Lawmakers give a rationale of diversity as the reason for country caps. Why is the reason for diversity not relevant for undocumented? I am sure there are undocumented from all countries and not just one country?
hot Victoria Beckham wore a
pj1
03-24 12:11 PM
Hi,
I am on an L1B visa which is valid till 2013.I want to know different options available if i wish to get an H1B visa.
Thanks
I am on an L1B visa which is valid till 2013.I want to know different options available if i wish to get an H1B visa.
Thanks
more...
house arrivals-eckham.jpg
ramus
07-05 03:58 PM
Thank you.. IV appreciate your help.. I wish we get more new members like you.
Hi,
I joined for recurring $50 per month. I will ask all my friends to do the same.
I believe IV is the only forum/organazation concerned about our cause. Everybody else thinks immigration issue is just about illegal aliens. IV highlights the real issue, legal immigration.
dupedinjuly
Hi,
I joined for recurring $50 per month. I will ask all my friends to do the same.
I believe IV is the only forum/organazation concerned about our cause. Everybody else thinks immigration issue is just about illegal aliens. IV highlights the real issue, legal immigration.
dupedinjuly
tattoo Victoria Beckham worried about
Jerrome
07-12 05:28 PM
I feel this move is to benefit EB-2 China, Since the EB1 and EB2 overflow are evenly distributed across china and india, keeping PD with 2004 would be a loss for china and gain for India. So by keeping 2006 June, USCIS will have enough visa numbers for China . India's share will be consumed by 2004 and 2005 applicants.
Even if India's PD is going to be in 2006 mid, this would result some adhoc or lucky one in 2006 getting GC than a majority of applicants. PD for india would move back to 2004 or 2005 by october 08.
If USCIS follows the same rule again then by next year end the PD for India will move.
This is my guess.
Even if India's PD is going to be in 2006 mid, this would result some adhoc or lucky one in 2006 getting GC than a majority of applicants. PD for india would move back to 2004 or 2005 by october 08.
If USCIS follows the same rule again then by next year end the PD for India will move.
This is my guess.
more...
pictures Victoria Beckham Fashion Style
Chris Rock
08-11 03:16 PM
If there is a non-controversial immi. law change attempt I will donate $500. I will also bring my friends and the total may exceed $2000. We all willing to donate but only if we know that there is good chance of passing.
If there is an attempt to push ideas like recapture, forget it. It will not pass in this economy. I do not want to waste my money and time on those kind of ideas.
IMHO. Not to find fault with anyone. Please do not mistake me.
If there is an attempt to push ideas like recapture, forget it. It will not pass in this economy. I do not want to waste my money and time on those kind of ideas.
IMHO. Not to find fault with anyone. Please do not mistake me.
dresses victoria beckham royal wedding outfit. David, Victoria Beckham Arrive
ca_immigrant
08-10 07:09 PM
are we there yet ??
are we there yet ??
are we there yet ??
:p
are we there yet ??
are we there yet ??
:p
more...
makeup Victoria Beckham runs the rule
cps060
01-31 04:27 PM
If I-140 has been approved, would it still be fine to apply for transfer from H1-B to F1 status by using form I-539 & university issued I-20 ? How long does it take to transfer status from H1B to F1 ? When can one start school �. Only after I-539 approval or after only applying ?
For pursuing an MBA, does it matter if one is on F1 or H4 (spouse is on separate H1)
How long does it take to transfer status from H1B to H4 ?
For pursuing an MBA, does it matter if one is on F1 or H4 (spouse is on separate H1)
How long does it take to transfer status from H1B to H4 ?
girlfriend Victoria Beckham`s Royal Wedding outfit revealed
amitjoey
07-05 03:52 PM
Update: Thank you everyone who has contributed since July 2 when we announced the drive. Our total contributions from paypal and google are around $2,500 till now (despite having 15 k members). As you can understand this is hardly of any significance for even a small legal effort. A big lawsuit is out of question. Thus IV core will use it for IV activities to further pursue its advocacy efforts. IV encourages its members being a plaintiffs with AILF if they so desire. If you are an IV member and also a plaintiff, you can let us know for any guidance we can provide. IV will be coming up with more direction to its members soon. We will have some plan for everyone and will need participation from everyone. Please stay tuned.
Man, $2500 only. That is really pathetic.
Man, $2500 only. That is really pathetic.
hairstyles Victoria Beckham wins the best
lazycis
01-18 11:58 AM
US Code, Title 8 � 1304. Forms for registration and fingerprinting
(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
So at least make a copy of your I-94/approval notice/GC and keep it in your wallet.
(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
So at least make a copy of your I-94/approval notice/GC and keep it in your wallet.
vkotval
12-28 03:01 PM
Just wanted to share this link with you all
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_analys.html
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_analys.html
bodhi_tree
06-06 01:59 PM
We got the "welcome" and "card production ordered" email for my wife and I today too. It was a long frustrating wait at times but I am glad its over for us now. Our best wishes to those that are still waiting.
No RFE at any stage, straight forward case, never called them for status or infopass. Took them about 4.5 years.
Here are our dates for those interested in tracking.
PD: Jan 29, 2004, EB2
Ohio labor approved - Oct 2004
45 day letter - Jan 2005
Labor approved from Dalla BEC - June 2006
I I140 regular, non concurrent approved - Sept 2006
I 485 sent to Nebraska - July 13 2007
EAD approved - Oct 2007
I485 approval email - June,06, 2008
No RFE at any stage, straight forward case, never called them for status or infopass. Took them about 4.5 years.
Here are our dates for those interested in tracking.
PD: Jan 29, 2004, EB2
Ohio labor approved - Oct 2004
45 day letter - Jan 2005
Labor approved from Dalla BEC - June 2006
I I140 regular, non concurrent approved - Sept 2006
I 485 sent to Nebraska - July 13 2007
EAD approved - Oct 2007
I485 approval email - June,06, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment