mariner5555
03-14 03:01 PM
I have met my rep. He took the letter etc but nothing happens after that. Starting a new campaign to the USCIS director doesn't dilute the issue, rather it makes our case stronger, this way we are telling them we are really really troubled...
I think rather than a new campaign which asks members to send postal mail we should have one clear and nicely written letter where members can put their signatures or vote electronically (I guess something like this exists) ..this letter (with thousands of votes / signature) can then be sent to various organizations and important people (president, congress, realtors, lobbyists etc etc).
I guess the main point to say would be the long waiting times, inefficient USCIS etc due to which lot of immigrants are going back to their home countries (therby leading to more outsourcing), lot of immigrants are not making big financial purchases (buying homes etc) etc etc
footnote - The reason I bring housing is US always speeds up GC processing whenever they face a crisis - from what I have heard in 70's when they needed civil engineers and doctors - they would give them GC's very quickly ..whichever financial news you read - the bottom line is no one is buying houses - in legal immigrants case - why the heck would they if they dont know if they will be able to stay here permanently :-D
I think rather than a new campaign which asks members to send postal mail we should have one clear and nicely written letter where members can put their signatures or vote electronically (I guess something like this exists) ..this letter (with thousands of votes / signature) can then be sent to various organizations and important people (president, congress, realtors, lobbyists etc etc).
I guess the main point to say would be the long waiting times, inefficient USCIS etc due to which lot of immigrants are going back to their home countries (therby leading to more outsourcing), lot of immigrants are not making big financial purchases (buying homes etc) etc etc
footnote - The reason I bring housing is US always speeds up GC processing whenever they face a crisis - from what I have heard in 70's when they needed civil engineers and doctors - they would give them GC's very quickly ..whichever financial news you read - the bottom line is no one is buying houses - in legal immigrants case - why the heck would they if they dont know if they will be able to stay here permanently :-D
wallpaper Happy Chinese New Year 2011
ssdtm
03-22 01:02 AM
My EB-3 priority date is 10/17/2004 Non-PERM. My I-140 was filed in May 2007 and is approved in Aug 2008. Meanwhile I also filed for I-485 for me and my spouse (thanks to DOS Visagate June 2007 event)
I am also on H1B 6th year. Looking at the delay in the EB3 I am contemplating if there is any risk in filing for EB-2.
---- No risk in filing in EB2
Since I came into US in 2003, I moved up in the company ranks few times and am in managerial position. Am I eligible for interfiling my GC case to EB2 without losing original priority date.
---- Yes you are. It is not only your qualifications that matter but Job MUST demand all those qualifications + exp to justify EB2. Many cos do not file in EB2 even if you are PHD because job does not need that.
Another way is file the EB2 485 in CP. I was told by a reputed lawyer that interfiling is not the only way to use earlier PD.
Is it mandatory that I should be eligible for EB2 criteria (like 5 years experience or Post Grad Degree) as on original Priority Date for interfiling to work.
---- There is lack of clarity on this. I have read lawyer opinions on both sides.
Any advice is appreciated. I will initiate it in our company. Also any potential risks and RFEs I should expect?
Thanks
----
I am also on H1B 6th year. Looking at the delay in the EB3 I am contemplating if there is any risk in filing for EB-2.
---- No risk in filing in EB2
Since I came into US in 2003, I moved up in the company ranks few times and am in managerial position. Am I eligible for interfiling my GC case to EB2 without losing original priority date.
---- Yes you are. It is not only your qualifications that matter but Job MUST demand all those qualifications + exp to justify EB2. Many cos do not file in EB2 even if you are PHD because job does not need that.
Another way is file the EB2 485 in CP. I was told by a reputed lawyer that interfiling is not the only way to use earlier PD.
Is it mandatory that I should be eligible for EB2 criteria (like 5 years experience or Post Grad Degree) as on original Priority Date for interfiling to work.
---- There is lack of clarity on this. I have read lawyer opinions on both sides.
Any advice is appreciated. I will initiate it in our company. Also any potential risks and RFEs I should expect?
Thanks
----
dkupadhyay
11-23 12:59 PM
Hi,
I am from India. My previous attorney paper filed my I-140 in Nov. 2006. My new attorney filed I-485 in July 2007. My new attorney has received only the copy of I-140 application and receipt from the previous attorney.
In late 2008, with the help of a congressman, my new attorney was able to figure out that USCIS has lost my original I-140 application (filed at Nebraska center) and USCIS has issued the same I-140 receipt no. to somebody else. Then USCIS auto-created a new I-140 and gave me SRC receipt no. with filing date as Jan 2008 and as electronically filed by my previous attorney.
The new I-140 (SRC one) got approved in March 2009.
Got RFE in August 2009 for my I-485 application asking for the approval notice of my original I-140. My new attorney responded with all the history and the new I-140 approval notice.
Now I have received NOID for my I-485 threatening that if I don't submit the original receipt for the original I-140 then USCIS will deny my application. The USCIS is saying that auto-created I-140 has been filed more than 6 months later than filing I-485 case and can't be the base for filing I-485.
The previous attorney has not provided the original receipt of the original I-140 application and is not reachable via any means (doesn't respond to e-mail or phone calls. Office remains locked whenever I tried to visit him). So getting the original receipt from him is almost impossible. USCIS is not happy with the copy of the receipt.
Right now I don't have any proof (other than copy of the receipt of the original I-140 filing) to support that my I-140 was filed before I-485 filing.
What should I do in this case? Any suggestion will be appreciated.
I am from India. My previous attorney paper filed my I-140 in Nov. 2006. My new attorney filed I-485 in July 2007. My new attorney has received only the copy of I-140 application and receipt from the previous attorney.
In late 2008, with the help of a congressman, my new attorney was able to figure out that USCIS has lost my original I-140 application (filed at Nebraska center) and USCIS has issued the same I-140 receipt no. to somebody else. Then USCIS auto-created a new I-140 and gave me SRC receipt no. with filing date as Jan 2008 and as electronically filed by my previous attorney.
The new I-140 (SRC one) got approved in March 2009.
Got RFE in August 2009 for my I-485 application asking for the approval notice of my original I-140. My new attorney responded with all the history and the new I-140 approval notice.
Now I have received NOID for my I-485 threatening that if I don't submit the original receipt for the original I-140 then USCIS will deny my application. The USCIS is saying that auto-created I-140 has been filed more than 6 months later than filing I-485 case and can't be the base for filing I-485.
The previous attorney has not provided the original receipt of the original I-140 application and is not reachable via any means (doesn't respond to e-mail or phone calls. Office remains locked whenever I tried to visit him). So getting the original receipt from him is almost impossible. USCIS is not happy with the copy of the receipt.
Right now I don't have any proof (other than copy of the receipt of the original I-140 filing) to support that my I-140 was filed before I-485 filing.
What should I do in this case? Any suggestion will be appreciated.
2011 Happy Chinese (Lunar) New Year
royus77
06-29 11:48 AM
I am looking to this poll as it will really help where i am in the filing process .
more...
garybanz
10-23 06:17 PM
I'll be in a conference in SFO and can't make it to diwali mela myself, but I'll like to sponsor an Immigration Voice TX t-shirt to who ever donates maximum time to the IV booth*.
I'll let Needhelp decide who the winner is.
* Restrictions apply, core team not eligible
I'll let Needhelp decide who the winner is.
* Restrictions apply, core team not eligible
Macaca
04-22 09:07 AM
Passing On H-1b Costs to the Employee? (http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/FeesArticle07.18.2006.pdf) -- Smart Business Practice or DOL Violation?, by Michael F. Hammond and Damaris Del Valle
After all the costs associated with an H-1B petition are totaled, the sum can be alarming. In order to offset this cost, some employers ask that the beneficiary, the employee who is being hired, reimburse the company in whole or in part. Which costs may and may not be paid by the beneficiary can be a tricky matter. What follows is an analysis of H-1B costs and who may pay what.
All deductions from an H-1B worker’s pay fall into three categories: authorized, unauthorized, or prohibited. Authorized deductions can be taken without worry of whether or not such a deduction will lower the employee’s rate of pay below the required wage rate. Unauthorized deductions, counter to what the term may connote, can be taken from an employee’s wage but are considered non-payment and are only allowed if the beneficiary’s wage rate, after the deduction(s), is greater than the required amount listed on the Labor Condition Application (LCA). Unauthorized deductions cannot push the employee’s wage below either the prevailing wage rate or the actual wage rate, i.e. salaries of those similarly employed and qualified at the work site. Prohibited deductions may not be taken from the employee’s pay regardless of the effect they would have on the required wage rate.
The most straightforward of the deductions is the prohibited deduction. The Training Fee associated with the H-1B petition is the only prohibited deduction associated with the cost of filing an H-1B petition. Rajan v. International Business Solutions, Ltd. and the language in the relevant regulation make it very clear that the Training Fee is to be paid by the employer or a third party; it is not to be reimbursed in part or whole by the employee. This fee must be completely shouldered by the employer or a party who is not the employee.
Deductions are considered by the Department of Labor (DOL) to be authorized if:
The deduction is reported as such on the employer’s payroll records,
The employee has voluntarily agreed to the deduction and such agreement is documented in writing (a job offer which carries a deduction as a condition of employment does not meet this requirement),
The deduction is for a matter that is principally for the benefit of the employee,
The deduction is not a recoupment of the employer’s business expenses,
The amount deducted does not exceed the fair market value or the actual cost (whichever is lower) of the matter covered, and
The amount deducted is not more than 25% of the employee’s disposable earning.
An Education Evaluation arguably qualifies as an authorized deduction. Similar to a translation fee, which is payable by the employee, the employee is benefiting from the evaluation and will be able to use it in the future in his/her private capacity if s/he so wishes. Of course, if the employee is paying for the evaluation, then s/he must be able to acquire a copy of the evaluation so that the future benefit upon which his/her payment is presumed is a real possibility.
Attorney’s fees associated with obtaining H-4 status for family members accompanying the Beneficiary may qualify as authorized deductions since the Beneficiary is the party who primarily benefits from such fees. In addition, attorney fees associated with visa issuance, assuming that international travel is not a requirement for the position, could be properly considered as authorized deductions. In order to properly deduct the attorney fees associated with these processes, it is important that the attorney break down the specifics of how much is being charged for each element of the H-1B process- this will allow the employer to deduct those fees associated with the retention of the visas for the accompanying family members without concerning itself with the deduction requirements necessary for unauthorized deductions.
The circumstances surrounding the Premium Processing Fee determine if deduction of the fee is to qualify as authorized or unauthorized. While the speedy decision that the Premium Processing Fee guarantees often benefits both the employer and the employee, it is important to take notice of which party requests and benefits most from premium processing. If the employee has decided to utilize premium processing for his/her own personal benefit, then the employer may be reimbursed by the employee in accordance with the requirements established by the DOL for authorized deductions. If the employer is the party desiring premium process and who will benefit from such processing, then any deductions from the employee’s pay are unauthorized and, as such Deduction of attorney’s fees associated with the filing of the LCA or H-1B and the Base Fee (or I-129 Fee) are considered to be unauthorized. These fees are considered to be the employer’s business expenses and, for this reason, are not authorized deductions. These fees may be deducted from the employee’s pay so long as they do not drop the rate of pay below the required wage rate.
It is not clear whether or not the Fraud Fee which was implemented in March 2005 is unauthorized or prohibited. The language of the act regarding the Fraud Fee states that “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fraud prevention and detection fee on an employer filing a petition.”10 Almost identical language is used in the Act to refer to the Training Fee.11 Such similarity could be read to mean that the restrictions of the Training Fee also apply to the Fraud Fee. However, 20 C.F.R. 655 is explicit in saying that the employee cannot pay the Training Fee; no such statement is made regarding the Fraud Fee. The regulation regarding the Training Fee, 20 C.F.R. 655, predates the creation of the Fraud Fee, which may explain this discrepancy. Nonetheless, the language referring to the Fraud Fee is not explicitly prohibitive and an employer may decide to be reimbursed by the employee. If an employer chooses to do so, any deductions from the employee’s salary to pay for this fee must meet the DOL requirements for unauthorized deductions. 12
Before any payments are made by the employee or deductions are taken from his/her pay to reimburse the employer, it must be determined if such deduction is permitted and if so, whether or not it is authorized or unauthorized. Once these preliminary determinations are made, appropriate steps must be taken to ensure that the DOL’s requirements are met. As a practical matter, there are very few circumstances in which the prospective employee could legally be made to pay for the costs associated with the H-1b process without an employer risking non-compliance and causing significant record keeping.
After all the costs associated with an H-1B petition are totaled, the sum can be alarming. In order to offset this cost, some employers ask that the beneficiary, the employee who is being hired, reimburse the company in whole or in part. Which costs may and may not be paid by the beneficiary can be a tricky matter. What follows is an analysis of H-1B costs and who may pay what.
All deductions from an H-1B worker’s pay fall into three categories: authorized, unauthorized, or prohibited. Authorized deductions can be taken without worry of whether or not such a deduction will lower the employee’s rate of pay below the required wage rate. Unauthorized deductions, counter to what the term may connote, can be taken from an employee’s wage but are considered non-payment and are only allowed if the beneficiary’s wage rate, after the deduction(s), is greater than the required amount listed on the Labor Condition Application (LCA). Unauthorized deductions cannot push the employee’s wage below either the prevailing wage rate or the actual wage rate, i.e. salaries of those similarly employed and qualified at the work site. Prohibited deductions may not be taken from the employee’s pay regardless of the effect they would have on the required wage rate.
The most straightforward of the deductions is the prohibited deduction. The Training Fee associated with the H-1B petition is the only prohibited deduction associated with the cost of filing an H-1B petition. Rajan v. International Business Solutions, Ltd. and the language in the relevant regulation make it very clear that the Training Fee is to be paid by the employer or a third party; it is not to be reimbursed in part or whole by the employee. This fee must be completely shouldered by the employer or a party who is not the employee.
Deductions are considered by the Department of Labor (DOL) to be authorized if:
The deduction is reported as such on the employer’s payroll records,
The employee has voluntarily agreed to the deduction and such agreement is documented in writing (a job offer which carries a deduction as a condition of employment does not meet this requirement),
The deduction is for a matter that is principally for the benefit of the employee,
The deduction is not a recoupment of the employer’s business expenses,
The amount deducted does not exceed the fair market value or the actual cost (whichever is lower) of the matter covered, and
The amount deducted is not more than 25% of the employee’s disposable earning.
An Education Evaluation arguably qualifies as an authorized deduction. Similar to a translation fee, which is payable by the employee, the employee is benefiting from the evaluation and will be able to use it in the future in his/her private capacity if s/he so wishes. Of course, if the employee is paying for the evaluation, then s/he must be able to acquire a copy of the evaluation so that the future benefit upon which his/her payment is presumed is a real possibility.
Attorney’s fees associated with obtaining H-4 status for family members accompanying the Beneficiary may qualify as authorized deductions since the Beneficiary is the party who primarily benefits from such fees. In addition, attorney fees associated with visa issuance, assuming that international travel is not a requirement for the position, could be properly considered as authorized deductions. In order to properly deduct the attorney fees associated with these processes, it is important that the attorney break down the specifics of how much is being charged for each element of the H-1B process- this will allow the employer to deduct those fees associated with the retention of the visas for the accompanying family members without concerning itself with the deduction requirements necessary for unauthorized deductions.
The circumstances surrounding the Premium Processing Fee determine if deduction of the fee is to qualify as authorized or unauthorized. While the speedy decision that the Premium Processing Fee guarantees often benefits both the employer and the employee, it is important to take notice of which party requests and benefits most from premium processing. If the employee has decided to utilize premium processing for his/her own personal benefit, then the employer may be reimbursed by the employee in accordance with the requirements established by the DOL for authorized deductions. If the employer is the party desiring premium process and who will benefit from such processing, then any deductions from the employee’s pay are unauthorized and, as such Deduction of attorney’s fees associated with the filing of the LCA or H-1B and the Base Fee (or I-129 Fee) are considered to be unauthorized. These fees are considered to be the employer’s business expenses and, for this reason, are not authorized deductions. These fees may be deducted from the employee’s pay so long as they do not drop the rate of pay below the required wage rate.
It is not clear whether or not the Fraud Fee which was implemented in March 2005 is unauthorized or prohibited. The language of the act regarding the Fraud Fee states that “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fraud prevention and detection fee on an employer filing a petition.”10 Almost identical language is used in the Act to refer to the Training Fee.11 Such similarity could be read to mean that the restrictions of the Training Fee also apply to the Fraud Fee. However, 20 C.F.R. 655 is explicit in saying that the employee cannot pay the Training Fee; no such statement is made regarding the Fraud Fee. The regulation regarding the Training Fee, 20 C.F.R. 655, predates the creation of the Fraud Fee, which may explain this discrepancy. Nonetheless, the language referring to the Fraud Fee is not explicitly prohibitive and an employer may decide to be reimbursed by the employee. If an employer chooses to do so, any deductions from the employee’s salary to pay for this fee must meet the DOL requirements for unauthorized deductions. 12
Before any payments are made by the employee or deductions are taken from his/her pay to reimburse the employer, it must be determined if such deduction is permitted and if so, whether or not it is authorized or unauthorized. Once these preliminary determinations are made, appropriate steps must be taken to ensure that the DOL’s requirements are met. As a practical matter, there are very few circumstances in which the prospective employee could legally be made to pay for the costs associated with the H-1b process without an employer risking non-compliance and causing significant record keeping.
more...
jaane_bhi_do_yaaro
08-25 08:22 PM
Good luck, mine is the same PD
Good Luck for tomorrow's meeting.
Good Luck for tomorrow's meeting.
2010 Happy Chinese New Year to all
wandmaker
10-13 09:42 AM
She can get letter from her employer that mentions that she's on maternity leave to prove that she is still employed and also that she can join back.
two words, good luck
two words, good luck
more...
gc_relief
04-27 03:24 PM
I have updated my profile..
hair Happy Chinese New Year ~ 兔年
johnnymore
03-18 03:59 PM
I'm a US-born citizen and my dear friend (now my wife) came to US from Thailand on R1/R2 Multiple Entry Visitor Visa for pleasure and to travel around with me to see the US. Though not intending to, we ultimately married while she was here on her visitor visa. See chronology below. We need to file the right forms. Please help me as this is a daunting task. If I can get some questions answered, then it will clear the clouded skies!
We both will be in the US during this process.
Me > :confused:
My Wife > :(
Here is our current situation:
1. I've been back and forth to Thailand for better part of three years for tsunami relief.
2. Met my wife doing relief work.
3. She applied for visitor visa at US Embassy in Bangkok March 2007.
4. Came first time to US May 2007
5. Married in California in July 2007 (had not intended to, but we fell in love!)
6. Returned to Thailand Sept 2007
7. Returned to US (together) Dec 2007 and are here now (March 2008)
8. Have filled out forms:
I-130 Petition for Alien Relative
I-485 Permanent Res/Adjust Status
I-325A Bio for each of us
I-134 Affidavit of Support
I-765 Employment Authorization Note: is eligibility req (c)(9) correct on line 16?
I feel there are no unusual circumstances about us. We are just normal people and don't fall under any asylum, Cuban or otherwise situations. I need to know about filing what forms and which ones together. Also, which ones will require certain documentation and when should they be included. We will likely file the 130/485/325/765 concurrently. What else should we file and what do I not need to file that I've listed?
Please get me going on this and then I can stop pulling my hair out.
I discoverd this forum today and am so happy I've found it! :D
We both will be in the US during this process.
Me > :confused:
My Wife > :(
Here is our current situation:
1. I've been back and forth to Thailand for better part of three years for tsunami relief.
2. Met my wife doing relief work.
3. She applied for visitor visa at US Embassy in Bangkok March 2007.
4. Came first time to US May 2007
5. Married in California in July 2007 (had not intended to, but we fell in love!)
6. Returned to Thailand Sept 2007
7. Returned to US (together) Dec 2007 and are here now (March 2008)
8. Have filled out forms:
I-130 Petition for Alien Relative
I-485 Permanent Res/Adjust Status
I-325A Bio for each of us
I-134 Affidavit of Support
I-765 Employment Authorization Note: is eligibility req (c)(9) correct on line 16?
I feel there are no unusual circumstances about us. We are just normal people and don't fall under any asylum, Cuban or otherwise situations. I need to know about filing what forms and which ones together. Also, which ones will require certain documentation and when should they be included. We will likely file the 130/485/325/765 concurrently. What else should we file and what do I not need to file that I've listed?
Please get me going on this and then I can stop pulling my hair out.
I discoverd this forum today and am so happy I've found it! :D
more...
SeanDell
06-02 09:29 PM
Hi,
I am on H1B in US. My current H1 is valid till July 6, 2009. Then I have an approved H1 extension valid from July 7, 2009 for the next 3 years to 2012. I also have my I-485 applied and is pending for the priority date to be current. I am planning to go to Canada in the last week of June to complete the Canadian PR Landing formalities. I would be in Canada for about 6 days and plan to use AVR (Automatic Visa Revalidation) while coming back to the US. I have a couple of questions with regards to that:
1. My current passport is valid till September, 2009. Can that be a problem while coming back to the US using AVR (as passport will be expiring in app. 3 months)? Is there any minimum Passport validity period for US POE to enter US?
2. When using AVR, is there a new I-94 issued at the POE or the same previous I-94 is handed over as it is?
3. As I have a pending 485, can the completion of Canadian PR Landing formalities and use of AVR while coming back to US be a problem at the POE or for 485?
I would highly appreciate the replies.
Thanks.
Hi......Can any of the lawyers please shed some light on this?
I am on H1B in US. My current H1 is valid till July 6, 2009. Then I have an approved H1 extension valid from July 7, 2009 for the next 3 years to 2012. I also have my I-485 applied and is pending for the priority date to be current. I am planning to go to Canada in the last week of June to complete the Canadian PR Landing formalities. I would be in Canada for about 6 days and plan to use AVR (Automatic Visa Revalidation) while coming back to the US. I have a couple of questions with regards to that:
1. My current passport is valid till September, 2009. Can that be a problem while coming back to the US using AVR (as passport will be expiring in app. 3 months)? Is there any minimum Passport validity period for US POE to enter US?
2. When using AVR, is there a new I-94 issued at the POE or the same previous I-94 is handed over as it is?
3. As I have a pending 485, can the completion of Canadian PR Landing formalities and use of AVR while coming back to US be a problem at the POE or for 485?
I would highly appreciate the replies.
Thanks.
Hi......Can any of the lawyers please shed some light on this?
hot Happy Chinese New Year 2011!
raysaikat
04-17 12:46 AM
Here's our situation:
Both of our GC applications were filed in EB3 categories, by our individual employers, independent of each other.
My priority date is Apr 2002. My 140 is approved and 485 was filed in 2007 and is currently pending.
My husband's 140 is also approved and 485 was filed back in 2005. His priority date is Sep 2003.
Is there any way now to link both our applications, so he can take advantage of my earlier priority date without him having to withdraw his 485 application?
Here is what I understand, but make sure you seek professional opinion before making any move.
He can simply submit another I-485 as the derivative of your application. Of course that can only happen when your PD becomes current. He does not have to withdraw his own application. If he gets GC as your derivative, his other I-485 will automatically become invalid.
Both of our GC applications were filed in EB3 categories, by our individual employers, independent of each other.
My priority date is Apr 2002. My 140 is approved and 485 was filed in 2007 and is currently pending.
My husband's 140 is also approved and 485 was filed back in 2005. His priority date is Sep 2003.
Is there any way now to link both our applications, so he can take advantage of my earlier priority date without him having to withdraw his 485 application?
Here is what I understand, but make sure you seek professional opinion before making any move.
He can simply submit another I-485 as the derivative of your application. Of course that can only happen when your PD becomes current. He does not have to withdraw his own application. If he gets GC as your derivative, his other I-485 will automatically become invalid.
more...
house HAPPY CHINESE NEW YEAR 2011!
vactorboy29
05-14 02:36 PM
I did my three years diploma (polytechnic) and three years engineering degree (B.E.) after that and I had @ eight years of experience while I had applied for GC through EB2 category. I had no problem in getting my I-140 approval; so far I have not received single rfe.
tattoo Happy New Year 2011!
devang77
07-06 09:49 PM
Interesting Article....
Washington (CNN) -- We're getting to the point where even good news comes wrapped in bad news.
Good news: Despite the terrible June job numbers (125,000 jobs lost as the Census finished its work), one sector continues to gain -- manufacturing.
Factories added 9,000 workers in June, for a total of 136,000 hires since December 2009.
So that's something, yes?
Maybe not. Despite millions of unemployed, despite 2 million job losses in manufacturing between the end of 2007 and the end of 2009, factory employers apparently cannot find the workers they need. Here's what the New York Times reported Friday:
"The problem, the companies say, is a mismatch between the kind of skilled workers needed and the ranks of the unemployed.
"During the recession, domestic manufacturers appear to have accelerated the long-term move toward greater automation, laying off more of their lowest-skilled workers and replacing them with cheaper labor abroad.
"Now they are looking to hire people who can operate sophisticated computerized machinery, follow complex blueprints and demonstrate higher math proficiency than was previously required of the typical assembly line worker."
It may sound like manufacturers are being too fussy. But they face a real problem.
As manufacturing work gets more taxing, manufacturers are looking at a work force that is actually becoming less literate and less skilled.
In 2007, ETS -- the people who run the country's standardized tests -- compiled a battery of scores of basic literacy conducted over the previous 15 years and arrived at a startling warning: On present trends, the country's average score on basic literacy tests will drop by 5 percent by 2030 as compared to 1992.
That's a disturbing headline. Behind the headline is even worse news.
Not everybody's scores are dropping. In fact, ETS estimates that the percentage of Americans who can read at the very highest levels will actually rise slightly by 2030 as compared to 1992 -- a special national "thank you" to all those parents who read to their kids at bedtime!
But that small rise at the top is overbalanced by a collapse of literacy at the bottom.
In 1992, 17 percent of Americans scored at the very lowest literacy level. On present trends, 27 percent of Americans will score at the very lowest level in 2030.
What's driving the deterioration? An immigration policy that favors the unskilled. Immigrants to Canada and Australia typically arrive with very high skills, including English-language competence. But the United States has taken a different course. Since 2000, the United States has received some 10 million migrants, approximately half of them illegal.
Migrants to the United States arrive with much less formal schooling than migrants to Canada and Australia and very poor English-language skills. More than 80 percent of Hispanic adult migrants to the United States score below what ETS deems a minimum level of literacy necessary for success in the U.S. labor market.
Let's put this in concrete terms. Imagine a migrant to the United States. He's hard-working, strong, energetic, determined to get ahead. He speaks almost zero English, and can barely read or write even in Spanish. He completed his last year of formal schooling at age 13 and has been working with his hands ever since.
He's an impressive, even admirable human being. Maybe he reminds some Americans of their grandfather. And had he arrived in this country in 1920, there would have been many, many jobs for him to do that would have paid him a living wage, enabling him to better himself over time -- backbreaking jobs, but jobs that did not pay too much less than what a fully literate English-speaking worker could earn.
During the debt-happy 2000s, that same worker might earn a living assembling houses or landscaping hotels and resorts. But with the Great Recession, the bottom has fallen out of his world. And even when the recession ends, we're not going to be building houses like we used to, or spending money on vacations either.
We may hope that over time the children and grandchildren of America's immigrants of the 1990s and 2000s will do better than their parents and grandparents. For now, the indicators are not good: American-born Hispanics drop out of high school at very high rates.
Over time, yes, they'll probably catch up -- by the 2060s, they'll probably be doing fine.
But over the intervening half century, we are going to face a big problem. We talk a lot about retraining workers, but we don't really know how to do it very well -- particularly workers who cannot read fluently. Our schools are not doing a brilliant job training the native-born less advantaged: even now, a half-century into the civil rights era, still one-third of black Americans read at the lowest level of literacy.
Just as we made bad decisions about physical capital in the 2000s -- overinvesting in houses, underinvesting in airports, roads, trains, and bridges -- so we also made fateful decisions about our human capital: accepting too many unskilled workers from Latin America, too few highly skilled workers from China and India.
We have been operating a human capital policy for the world of 1910, not 2010. And now the Great Recession is exposing the true costs of this malinvestment in human capital. It has wiped away the jobs that less-skilled immigrants can do, that offered them a livelihood and a future. Who knows when or if such jobs will return? Meanwhile the immigrants fitted for success in the 21st century economy were locating in Canada and Australia.
Americans do not believe in problems that cannot be quickly or easily solved. They place their faith in education and re-education. They do not like to remember that it took two and three generations for their own families to acquire the skills necessary to succeed in a technological society. They hate to imagine that their country might be less affluent, more unequal, and less globally competitive in the future because of decisions they are making now. Yet all these things are true.
We cannot predict in advance which skills precisely will be needed by the U.S. economy of a decade hence. Nor should we try, for we'll certainly guess wrong. What we can know is this: Immigrants who arrive with language and math skills, with professional or graduate degrees, will adapt better to whatever the future economy throws at them.
Even more important, their children are much more likely to find a secure footing in the ultratechnological economy of the mid-21st century. And by reducing the flow of very unskilled foreign workers into the United States, we will tighten labor supply in ways that will induce U.S. employers to recruit, train and retain the less-skilled native born, especially African-Americans -- the group hit hardest by the Great Recession of 2008-2010.
In the short term, we need policies to fight the recession. We need monetary stimulus, a cheaper dollar, and lower taxes. But none of these policies can fix the skills mismatch that occurs when an advanced industrial economy must find work for people who cannot read very well, and whose children are not reading much better.
The United States needs a human capital policy that emphasizes skilled immigration and halts unskilled immigration. It needed that policy 15 years ago, but it's not too late to start now.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Frum.
Why good jobs are going unfilled - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/06/frum.skills.mismatch/index.html?hpt=C2)
Washington (CNN) -- We're getting to the point where even good news comes wrapped in bad news.
Good news: Despite the terrible June job numbers (125,000 jobs lost as the Census finished its work), one sector continues to gain -- manufacturing.
Factories added 9,000 workers in June, for a total of 136,000 hires since December 2009.
So that's something, yes?
Maybe not. Despite millions of unemployed, despite 2 million job losses in manufacturing between the end of 2007 and the end of 2009, factory employers apparently cannot find the workers they need. Here's what the New York Times reported Friday:
"The problem, the companies say, is a mismatch between the kind of skilled workers needed and the ranks of the unemployed.
"During the recession, domestic manufacturers appear to have accelerated the long-term move toward greater automation, laying off more of their lowest-skilled workers and replacing them with cheaper labor abroad.
"Now they are looking to hire people who can operate sophisticated computerized machinery, follow complex blueprints and demonstrate higher math proficiency than was previously required of the typical assembly line worker."
It may sound like manufacturers are being too fussy. But they face a real problem.
As manufacturing work gets more taxing, manufacturers are looking at a work force that is actually becoming less literate and less skilled.
In 2007, ETS -- the people who run the country's standardized tests -- compiled a battery of scores of basic literacy conducted over the previous 15 years and arrived at a startling warning: On present trends, the country's average score on basic literacy tests will drop by 5 percent by 2030 as compared to 1992.
That's a disturbing headline. Behind the headline is even worse news.
Not everybody's scores are dropping. In fact, ETS estimates that the percentage of Americans who can read at the very highest levels will actually rise slightly by 2030 as compared to 1992 -- a special national "thank you" to all those parents who read to their kids at bedtime!
But that small rise at the top is overbalanced by a collapse of literacy at the bottom.
In 1992, 17 percent of Americans scored at the very lowest literacy level. On present trends, 27 percent of Americans will score at the very lowest level in 2030.
What's driving the deterioration? An immigration policy that favors the unskilled. Immigrants to Canada and Australia typically arrive with very high skills, including English-language competence. But the United States has taken a different course. Since 2000, the United States has received some 10 million migrants, approximately half of them illegal.
Migrants to the United States arrive with much less formal schooling than migrants to Canada and Australia and very poor English-language skills. More than 80 percent of Hispanic adult migrants to the United States score below what ETS deems a minimum level of literacy necessary for success in the U.S. labor market.
Let's put this in concrete terms. Imagine a migrant to the United States. He's hard-working, strong, energetic, determined to get ahead. He speaks almost zero English, and can barely read or write even in Spanish. He completed his last year of formal schooling at age 13 and has been working with his hands ever since.
He's an impressive, even admirable human being. Maybe he reminds some Americans of their grandfather. And had he arrived in this country in 1920, there would have been many, many jobs for him to do that would have paid him a living wage, enabling him to better himself over time -- backbreaking jobs, but jobs that did not pay too much less than what a fully literate English-speaking worker could earn.
During the debt-happy 2000s, that same worker might earn a living assembling houses or landscaping hotels and resorts. But with the Great Recession, the bottom has fallen out of his world. And even when the recession ends, we're not going to be building houses like we used to, or spending money on vacations either.
We may hope that over time the children and grandchildren of America's immigrants of the 1990s and 2000s will do better than their parents and grandparents. For now, the indicators are not good: American-born Hispanics drop out of high school at very high rates.
Over time, yes, they'll probably catch up -- by the 2060s, they'll probably be doing fine.
But over the intervening half century, we are going to face a big problem. We talk a lot about retraining workers, but we don't really know how to do it very well -- particularly workers who cannot read fluently. Our schools are not doing a brilliant job training the native-born less advantaged: even now, a half-century into the civil rights era, still one-third of black Americans read at the lowest level of literacy.
Just as we made bad decisions about physical capital in the 2000s -- overinvesting in houses, underinvesting in airports, roads, trains, and bridges -- so we also made fateful decisions about our human capital: accepting too many unskilled workers from Latin America, too few highly skilled workers from China and India.
We have been operating a human capital policy for the world of 1910, not 2010. And now the Great Recession is exposing the true costs of this malinvestment in human capital. It has wiped away the jobs that less-skilled immigrants can do, that offered them a livelihood and a future. Who knows when or if such jobs will return? Meanwhile the immigrants fitted for success in the 21st century economy were locating in Canada and Australia.
Americans do not believe in problems that cannot be quickly or easily solved. They place their faith in education and re-education. They do not like to remember that it took two and three generations for their own families to acquire the skills necessary to succeed in a technological society. They hate to imagine that their country might be less affluent, more unequal, and less globally competitive in the future because of decisions they are making now. Yet all these things are true.
We cannot predict in advance which skills precisely will be needed by the U.S. economy of a decade hence. Nor should we try, for we'll certainly guess wrong. What we can know is this: Immigrants who arrive with language and math skills, with professional or graduate degrees, will adapt better to whatever the future economy throws at them.
Even more important, their children are much more likely to find a secure footing in the ultratechnological economy of the mid-21st century. And by reducing the flow of very unskilled foreign workers into the United States, we will tighten labor supply in ways that will induce U.S. employers to recruit, train and retain the less-skilled native born, especially African-Americans -- the group hit hardest by the Great Recession of 2008-2010.
In the short term, we need policies to fight the recession. We need monetary stimulus, a cheaper dollar, and lower taxes. But none of these policies can fix the skills mismatch that occurs when an advanced industrial economy must find work for people who cannot read very well, and whose children are not reading much better.
The United States needs a human capital policy that emphasizes skilled immigration and halts unskilled immigration. It needed that policy 15 years ago, but it's not too late to start now.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Frum.
Why good jobs are going unfilled - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/06/frum.skills.mismatch/index.html?hpt=C2)
more...
pictures Again, Happy Chinese New Year
Bezzer
09-06 10:15 AM
um and theres many sites with ps tutorials... www.phong.com something starting with r...heh oh yeah and www.eyeballdesign.com has some good tutorials...though they mostly focus on interface design...oh well
The thing i could sugest is for you to do a search on like google for ps7 tutorials...
**** i really need to get ps7
The thing i could sugest is for you to do a search on like google for ps7 tutorials...
**** i really need to get ps7
dresses Happy Chiness New Year at Sala
anu_t
08-13 06:05 PM
joining back to EB2 company is the only option I see. But if EB2 company doesn't exist , this is a unique situation. Talk with the lawyer immidiately.
more...
makeup a HAPPY CHINESE NEW YEAR
ken
04-08 02:24 PM
Hello gurus
I filled my 485 in july fiasco at Nebraska service center. Today I recieved an online update on my and my wife case (485) saying that case has been transfered to miami,fl , the reason is because it falls under that jurisdiction.
I am EB3 India, PD Aug 2002.
I already recieved my EAD,AP
Let me know your thoughts or if some one else also recieve the same update.
Thanks in advance..
I filled my 485 in july fiasco at Nebraska service center. Today I recieved an online update on my and my wife case (485) saying that case has been transfered to miami,fl , the reason is because it falls under that jurisdiction.
I am EB3 India, PD Aug 2002.
I already recieved my EAD,AP
Let me know your thoughts or if some one else also recieve the same update.
Thanks in advance..
girlfriend Happy BUNNY Year! (Lunar
kaisersose
07-24 04:34 PM
Hi,
If I have a permanent offer after 180 days of Receipt date (I 485)...
Is this offer should be in the same location (state) where my labor got filed ???
Please advice...
Thanks
No. These questions have been answered already several times. Use the search feature.
If I have a permanent offer after 180 days of Receipt date (I 485)...
Is this offer should be in the same location (state) where my labor got filed ???
Please advice...
Thanks
No. These questions have been answered already several times. Use the search feature.
hairstyles Happy Chinese New Year!
hpandey
07-29 08:31 AM
Did Anyone got 2 year EAD when I-140 pending? There is some stupid assumption posted on some immigration website that USCIS is issuing 2 yr EAD to approved 140 petitions only..
Just want to confirm that.
We got a 2 year EAD for me and my wife and our I-140 is still pending .
Just want to confirm that.
We got a 2 year EAD for me and my wife and our I-140 is still pending .
snathan
02-22 11:41 AM
I am trying to port from EB3-EB2 from the same employer.
Prior to joining the employer, I had MS+2 years of experience. However, the lawyer applied in EB3. The job description read:
Required: BS+3
MS+1 also accepted
Experience in technologies A,B,C,D
I applied based on my MS+1 experience. Now the same company has another position with a very similar job description with a different title.
Required:MS+1
Experience in technologies A,B,C,D
Q1. Would this qualify for a EB2 position? Do I have to worry about the job descriptions being almost similar
Q2. The titles are different. But the EB2 position doesn't have "Senior" in the position title. Is there a need to worry?
Any replies are really appreciated.
Title alone will not make you to qualify for EB2. You need to worry about porting with the same employer as it might invite audit (most likely) and there are other consequences also to worry about.
Check with your HR - What category they are filing for the new job EB2/EB3
If EB2 ask them - Why did they file EB3 for you for the same position.
If EB3 - There is no point in porting.
Prior to joining the employer, I had MS+2 years of experience. However, the lawyer applied in EB3. The job description read:
Required: BS+3
MS+1 also accepted
Experience in technologies A,B,C,D
I applied based on my MS+1 experience. Now the same company has another position with a very similar job description with a different title.
Required:MS+1
Experience in technologies A,B,C,D
Q1. Would this qualify for a EB2 position? Do I have to worry about the job descriptions being almost similar
Q2. The titles are different. But the EB2 position doesn't have "Senior" in the position title. Is there a need to worry?
Any replies are really appreciated.
Title alone will not make you to qualify for EB2. You need to worry about porting with the same employer as it might invite audit (most likely) and there are other consequences also to worry about.
Check with your HR - What category they are filing for the new job EB2/EB3
If EB2 ask them - Why did they file EB3 for you for the same position.
If EB3 - There is no point in porting.
gauravsh
03-28 01:13 PM
Thanks,
I talked to a CPA and he said as long as I submitted the tax returns it should be fine.
My address on salary slip was of california but they never deducted any taxes for CA.
I talked to a CPA and he said as long as I submitted the tax returns it should be fine.
My address on salary slip was of california but they never deducted any taxes for CA.
No comments:
Post a Comment