calgirl
08-07 11:46 PM
When did you contact the Senators office and how long did they take to retrieve this information for you?
Thanks.
I have filed for my EAD and 485 in july 2007. I have not got my EAD due to Name check (dont know why they cannot issue EAD bcos of name check).
Well in my case USCIS did not give me any information.
So i had to call the senator office. Their office contacted the TSC, and got the information that my case is pending Name check.
Now i know my case is pending name check, whenever i call USCIS, they submit a request to provide me an update and ask me to call after 1 month, 2 months and like that.
So i have stopped calling USCIS and directly call the Senator office.
Infopass does not show any appointment dates in Altanta region. So i am relying on the Senator office.
So may be you can try calling the Senator office and ask them to followup with your case.
Thanks.
I have filed for my EAD and 485 in july 2007. I have not got my EAD due to Name check (dont know why they cannot issue EAD bcos of name check).
Well in my case USCIS did not give me any information.
So i had to call the senator office. Their office contacted the TSC, and got the information that my case is pending Name check.
Now i know my case is pending name check, whenever i call USCIS, they submit a request to provide me an update and ask me to call after 1 month, 2 months and like that.
So i have stopped calling USCIS and directly call the Senator office.
Infopass does not show any appointment dates in Altanta region. So i am relying on the Senator office.
So may be you can try calling the Senator office and ask them to followup with your case.
wallpaper no makeup models. snthampi
gc_in_30_yrs
10-03 11:52 AM
That is why you ALWAYS should keep a copy of ANY I-94 you are issued, whether at the border, the airport, or as part of your I-129 approval.
This also serves the purpose of proving that you maintained legal status throughout your adjustment period, AND should you need to cliam back time against your H1-B 6-year clock, you have concrete proof of every entry (and USCIS can match this against their proof of your departures).
This is not rocket science, people.
Ofcourse, this is not rocket science. But we need to take a copy of all I-94's we received is new to most of us. I recently came to know that I need to have all of these copied before surrendering before leaving the country.
This also serves the purpose of proving that you maintained legal status throughout your adjustment period, AND should you need to cliam back time against your H1-B 6-year clock, you have concrete proof of every entry (and USCIS can match this against their proof of your departures).
This is not rocket science, people.
Ofcourse, this is not rocket science. But we need to take a copy of all I-94's we received is new to most of us. I recently came to know that I need to have all of these copied before surrendering before leaving the country.
Bpositive
03-26 10:06 AM
Great frequent flyer program...great service....and no transit visa bs....no brainer
heard very good things about qatar airlines too..haven't used it...
heard very good things about qatar airlines too..haven't used it...
2011 pictured without makeup
sbnvs@yahoo.com
04-08 12:51 PM
Looks like demand data for May is out. Please check the following
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/EmploymentDemandUsedForCutOffDates.pdf
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/EmploymentDemandUsedForCutOffDates.pdf
more...
GKBest
10-18 10:51 PM
July 3rd filer....LIN# (though I-140 approved at TSC)
Receipt Date: July 3
Notice Date: October 11
EAD Card: Waiting
No FP notice yet
I-140 approved: TSC
Originating Issuer of I-485 and I-765 : NSC
Receipt Date: July 3
Notice Date: October 11
EAD Card: Waiting
No FP notice yet
I-140 approved: TSC
Originating Issuer of I-485 and I-765 : NSC
anu_t
06-17 12:23 PM
There are a lot of IV members whose labor is not approved yet (like me) or did not have their 140 filed as of May 15.
No. I don't think so you will have problem like us. Because you are stil eligible for 1 year extesion as labour is pending. For us we can't even apply for labour. and when we can i.e. on oct 2008 by that time we would have left less than 1 year so it is also not useful for us.
No. I don't think so you will have problem like us. Because you are stil eligible for 1 year extesion as labour is pending. For us we can't even apply for labour. and when we can i.e. on oct 2008 by that time we would have left less than 1 year so it is also not useful for us.
more...
perm2gc
08-24 10:28 AM
So just to be clear:
What most of you on this forum are suggesting is that I should apply for EAD/AP right away and also maintain my H1.
Do I need to go through my lawyer to apply for EAD/AP or I can apply it on my own? What is the USCIS fees for the same?
TIAEveryone preserves their H1 for the worst cases that might be coming in future..
You check the USCIS website and check yourself whether you can do it yourself or not.
What most of you on this forum are suggesting is that I should apply for EAD/AP right away and also maintain my H1.
Do I need to go through my lawyer to apply for EAD/AP or I can apply it on my own? What is the USCIS fees for the same?
TIAEveryone preserves their H1 for the worst cases that might be coming in future..
You check the USCIS website and check yourself whether you can do it yourself or not.
2010 efore and after makeup
Munna Bhai
01-09 12:44 PM
I have filed I-140 in May 2007 and it is still pending. Is there anyone in this same situation??Please let me know to whom to contact.
-M
-M
more...
Chelo
02-13 04:59 PM
Listen to
IV good reasons for joining IV
I. You don't want be waiting forever
II. You cannot make things happen alone
III. It is easier to work with a great team
IV. IV is a WINNER
.... Or whatever other four reasons you want to write
IV good reasons for joining IV
I. You don't want be waiting forever
II. You cannot make things happen alone
III. It is easier to work with a great team
IV. IV is a WINNER
.... Or whatever other four reasons you want to write
hair Asian Girls: Before And After
cagedcactus
05-03 06:59 PM
"senator_levin@levin.senate.gov" to me
show details Apr 30 (3 days ago)
Dear Mr. Amin:
Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration and border security. I appreciate receiving your views on these important issues.
Our immigration system is broken and needs reform. I believe an effective immigration policy must include comprehensive border security and comprehensive immigration reform. We must secure our borders against real threats from terrorism and protect U.S. workers, while preserving the freedoms and principles on which our nation was founded. We must address reforms realistically, stem the tide of illegal immigrants entering the country and be fair to those who are here legally.
I support comprehensive border security reform. I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L.109-289) that appropriated $1.83 billion to construct 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 461 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border of our country. I also supported an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief (P.L.109-13) that provided $390 million to hire an additional 650 border patrol agents, 250 immigration investigators, and 168 immigration enforcement agents and deportation officers, as well as to fund an additional 2,000 detention beds for immigration enforcement purposes.
I believe any reform must protect U.S. workers. For this reason, I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fair Minimum Wage Act (H.R.2) that would bar employers who violate immigration laws by hiring undocumented workers from receiving federal government contracts for up to 10 years. The Fair Minimum Wage Act passed the Senate on February 1, 2007, and must now be considered by a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. I believe it is important to ensure that employers hire only those legally eligible to work and that employees are treated fairly. I support a broad-based Electronic Employment Verification (EEV) system, which builds upon the existing voluntary pilot program, to increase the reliability of employment authorization checks. In the 109th Congress, I supported a number of worker protection amendments to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S.2611). I voted in favor of an amendment that would have established a true prevailing wage for all occupations to ensure that U.S. workers� wages are not lowered as a result of the guest worker program, and I supported an amendment that would have required employers to make good faith efforts to recruit U.S. workers first. S.2611 passed the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 62-36. Unfortunately, S.2611 was blocked by the House because of opposition to the immigration provisions in the Senate bill. The bill was not passed before the end of the 109th Congress.
Comprehensive immigration reform must remove the �magnet� that has attracted millions of people to cross the border illegally. We should not provide amnesty, but instead permit currently undocumented workers to earn the right to obtain legal status over a long period of time, under restrictive conditions, including being required to pay fees and back taxes. These individuals would be required to apply through the same immigration process as everyone else and take their place in line behind all those whose applications are pending. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate toward effective solutions that address our nation�s real immigration problems. Without a comprehensive approach to immigration reform, our current problems with illegal immigration will likely continue.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
CC to senator_levin
show details 7:36 pm (1 minute ago)
Respected Sir,
I wanted to bring to your attention the woes of immigrants who are legally here in U.S. Specifically, the high-skilled workers who are experiencing decade-long waits to get Green Cards (the employment based Green Cards). There are approximately half a million such people in U.S. today whose lives are in limbo as they wait to get their Green Cards. I encourage you to visit http://immigrationvoice.org, an organization comprising of such people who are lobbying the Congress to help get some relief urgently.
The focus of immigration reform has solely been on illegal immigration. What is not so well understood is that the fate of legal immigrants has been tied with that of the illegal immigrants (because there is just one bill that the Congress will debate - CIR/STRIVE). It is ironic that if this bill does not pass, legal immigrants would be left hanging in the dark again, even when there is bi-partisan support for their cause!
The waiting times for getting an employment-based (EB) Green Card (GC) are increasing each day for nationals of all countries. But especially hard-hit are people from India and China, whose waiting times are expected to increase to 10-15 years, if the current trend continues. The demand for EB-GC keeps increasing because over the last decade an average of about 100,000 skilled workers have joined the U.S. work-force each year (using H-1B visa, and graduating foreign students), but only 50,000 new employment-based Green Cards are issued. U.S. issues 140,000 EB GC but even family members are counted-off from this quota, which thus effectively reduces to about one-third. Therefore, each year about 50,000 skilled workers join the queue for a Green Card.
Once the wait for a Green Card starts, all major life-decisions are influenced by the Green Card application process. Decisions about traveling abroad, marrying, investing, kids' education, and changing cities are then based on the stage in which one's GC application is. The biggest impact of the wait is on the person's professional career. Once the process starts, changing jobs usually means re-filing for a GC, implying that the person starts from the end of the line again. Even promotions within the same company are not without risks, as any change in job descriptions necessitates refilling the application. So a person waiting for a GC is expected to remain in the same job with the same company and without any substantial increase (or decrease) in pay! The skilled worker therefore lives life in constant limbo.
The psychological impact of being stuck and being treated as less than equal, even while paying all taxes (including SS and Medicare, to which they are not even entitled to without becoming permanent residents) is immense.
Your help is very much needed to eliminate this unfair backlog and reform the system, so that no innocent and law abiding person should suffer anymore. Your kind reply is very valuable to me.
I appreciate your time and help.
Regards,
CC
Above is the email conversation beween me and Senetor Levine. He seems to be in support for Legal immigration, but is against Amnesty.
My reply here is basically a nice written post by a fellow member here (Eternal_hope).
So credit for writing goes to him.
A similar reply was sent to senetor Debbie Stabenow (Michigan too)
Please comment......
show details Apr 30 (3 days ago)
Dear Mr. Amin:
Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration and border security. I appreciate receiving your views on these important issues.
Our immigration system is broken and needs reform. I believe an effective immigration policy must include comprehensive border security and comprehensive immigration reform. We must secure our borders against real threats from terrorism and protect U.S. workers, while preserving the freedoms and principles on which our nation was founded. We must address reforms realistically, stem the tide of illegal immigrants entering the country and be fair to those who are here legally.
I support comprehensive border security reform. I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L.109-289) that appropriated $1.83 billion to construct 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 461 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border of our country. I also supported an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief (P.L.109-13) that provided $390 million to hire an additional 650 border patrol agents, 250 immigration investigators, and 168 immigration enforcement agents and deportation officers, as well as to fund an additional 2,000 detention beds for immigration enforcement purposes.
I believe any reform must protect U.S. workers. For this reason, I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fair Minimum Wage Act (H.R.2) that would bar employers who violate immigration laws by hiring undocumented workers from receiving federal government contracts for up to 10 years. The Fair Minimum Wage Act passed the Senate on February 1, 2007, and must now be considered by a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. I believe it is important to ensure that employers hire only those legally eligible to work and that employees are treated fairly. I support a broad-based Electronic Employment Verification (EEV) system, which builds upon the existing voluntary pilot program, to increase the reliability of employment authorization checks. In the 109th Congress, I supported a number of worker protection amendments to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S.2611). I voted in favor of an amendment that would have established a true prevailing wage for all occupations to ensure that U.S. workers� wages are not lowered as a result of the guest worker program, and I supported an amendment that would have required employers to make good faith efforts to recruit U.S. workers first. S.2611 passed the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 62-36. Unfortunately, S.2611 was blocked by the House because of opposition to the immigration provisions in the Senate bill. The bill was not passed before the end of the 109th Congress.
Comprehensive immigration reform must remove the �magnet� that has attracted millions of people to cross the border illegally. We should not provide amnesty, but instead permit currently undocumented workers to earn the right to obtain legal status over a long period of time, under restrictive conditions, including being required to pay fees and back taxes. These individuals would be required to apply through the same immigration process as everyone else and take their place in line behind all those whose applications are pending. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate toward effective solutions that address our nation�s real immigration problems. Without a comprehensive approach to immigration reform, our current problems with illegal immigration will likely continue.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
CC to senator_levin
show details 7:36 pm (1 minute ago)
Respected Sir,
I wanted to bring to your attention the woes of immigrants who are legally here in U.S. Specifically, the high-skilled workers who are experiencing decade-long waits to get Green Cards (the employment based Green Cards). There are approximately half a million such people in U.S. today whose lives are in limbo as they wait to get their Green Cards. I encourage you to visit http://immigrationvoice.org, an organization comprising of such people who are lobbying the Congress to help get some relief urgently.
The focus of immigration reform has solely been on illegal immigration. What is not so well understood is that the fate of legal immigrants has been tied with that of the illegal immigrants (because there is just one bill that the Congress will debate - CIR/STRIVE). It is ironic that if this bill does not pass, legal immigrants would be left hanging in the dark again, even when there is bi-partisan support for their cause!
The waiting times for getting an employment-based (EB) Green Card (GC) are increasing each day for nationals of all countries. But especially hard-hit are people from India and China, whose waiting times are expected to increase to 10-15 years, if the current trend continues. The demand for EB-GC keeps increasing because over the last decade an average of about 100,000 skilled workers have joined the U.S. work-force each year (using H-1B visa, and graduating foreign students), but only 50,000 new employment-based Green Cards are issued. U.S. issues 140,000 EB GC but even family members are counted-off from this quota, which thus effectively reduces to about one-third. Therefore, each year about 50,000 skilled workers join the queue for a Green Card.
Once the wait for a Green Card starts, all major life-decisions are influenced by the Green Card application process. Decisions about traveling abroad, marrying, investing, kids' education, and changing cities are then based on the stage in which one's GC application is. The biggest impact of the wait is on the person's professional career. Once the process starts, changing jobs usually means re-filing for a GC, implying that the person starts from the end of the line again. Even promotions within the same company are not without risks, as any change in job descriptions necessitates refilling the application. So a person waiting for a GC is expected to remain in the same job with the same company and without any substantial increase (or decrease) in pay! The skilled worker therefore lives life in constant limbo.
The psychological impact of being stuck and being treated as less than equal, even while paying all taxes (including SS and Medicare, to which they are not even entitled to without becoming permanent residents) is immense.
Your help is very much needed to eliminate this unfair backlog and reform the system, so that no innocent and law abiding person should suffer anymore. Your kind reply is very valuable to me.
I appreciate your time and help.
Regards,
CC
Above is the email conversation beween me and Senetor Levine. He seems to be in support for Legal immigration, but is against Amnesty.
My reply here is basically a nice written post by a fellow member here (Eternal_hope).
So credit for writing goes to him.
A similar reply was sent to senetor Debbie Stabenow (Michigan too)
Please comment......
more...
tertip
03-11 07:05 PM
You do sound paranoid.
All Immigraton Officers will not ask the same questions nor react the same way for similar answers.
Hence the reason I was asking for personal experiences. Thanks for your input.
All Immigraton Officers will not ask the same questions nor react the same way for similar answers.
Hence the reason I was asking for personal experiences. Thanks for your input.
hot Before and After Makeup (13
feedfront
09-29 12:03 PM
My cousin went for her sister-in-law's wedding and at New Delhi airport, the Customs Officer asked her to show the bag. Apparently, there was good amount of jewelry. And she had to declare it in her passport.
She was not charged any duty but she had to show it again during the departure.
Hope it helps.
I agree. If they make entry into passport, you've to show it during departure. Otherwise there is no hassle.
She was not charged any duty but she had to show it again during the departure.
Hope it helps.
I agree. If they make entry into passport, you've to show it during departure. Otherwise there is no hassle.
more...
house Before and After Makeup
purgan
01-22 11:35 AM
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5585.html
The Immigrant Technologist:
Studying Technology Transfer with China
Q&A with: William Kerr and Michael Roberts
Published: January 22, 2007
Author: Michael Roberts
Executive Summary:
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain? Professor William Kerr discusses the phenomena of technology transfer and implications for U.S.-based businesses and policymakers.
The trend of Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs staying home rather than moving to the United States is a trend that potentially offers both harm and opportunity to U.S.-based interests.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S. and are strong contributors to American technology development. It is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group.
U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries, around 15 percent today. U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain?
Q: Describe your research and how it relates to what you observed in China.
A: My research focuses on technology transfer through ethnic scientific and entrepreneurial networks. Traditional models of technology diffusion suggest that if you have a great idea, people who are ten feet away from you will learn about that idea first, followed by people who are 100 miles away, and so forth in concentric circles. My research on ethnic networks suggests this channel facilitates faster knowledge transfer and faster adoption of foreign technologies. For example, if the Chinese have a strong presence in the U.S. computer industry, relative to other ethnic groups, then computer technologies diffuse faster to China than elsewhere. This is true even for computer advances made by Americans, as the U.S.-based Chinese increase awareness and tacit knowledge development regarding these advances in their home country.
Q: Is your research relevant to other countries as well?
China is at a tipping point for entrepreneurship on an international scale.A: Yes, I have extended my empirical work to include over thirty industries and nine ethnicities, including Indian, Japanese, Korean, and Hispanic. It is very important to develop a broad sample to quantify correctly the overall importance of these networks. The Silicon Valley Chinese are a very special case, and my work seeks to understand the larger benefit these networks provide throughout the global economy. These macroeconomic findings are important inputs to business and policy circles.
Q: What makes technology transfer happen? Is it entrepreneurial opportunity in the home country, a loyalty to the home country, or government policies that encourage or require people to come home?
A: It's all of those. Surveys of these diasporic communities suggest they aid their home countries through both formal business relationships and informal contacts. Formal mechanisms run the spectrum from direct financial investment in overseas businesses that pursue technology opportunities to facilitating contracts and market awareness. Informal contacts are more frequent�the evidence we have suggests they are at least twice as common�and even more diverse in nature. Ongoing research will allow us to better distinguish these channels. A Beijing scholar we met on the trip, Henry Wang, and I are currently surveying a large population of Chinese entrepreneurs to paint a more comprehensive picture of the micro-underpinnings of this phenomena.
Q: What about multinational corporations? How do they fit into this scenario?
A: One of the strongest trends of globalization is that U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries. About 5 percent of U.S.-sponsored R&D was done in foreign countries in the 1980s, and that number is around 15 percent today. We visited Microsoft's R&D center in Beijing to learn more about its R&D efforts and interactions with the U.S. parent. This facility was founded in the late 1990s, and it has already grown to house a third of Microsoft's basic-science R&D researchers. More broadly, HBS assistant professor Fritz Foley and I are working on a research project that has found that U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals like Microsoft help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Q: Does your research have implications for U.S. policy?
A: One implication concerns immigration levels. It is interesting to note that while immigrants account for about 15 percent of the U.S. working population, they account for almost half of our Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers. Even within the Ph.D. ranks, foreign-born individuals have a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, elections to the National Academy of Sciences, patent citations, and so forth. They are a very strong contributor to U.S. technology development, so it is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group. It is one of the easiest policy levers we have to influence our nation's rate of innovation.
Q: Are countries that send their scholars to the United States losing their best and brightest?
A: My research shows that having these immigrant scientists, entrepreneurs, and engineers in the United States helps facilitate faster technology transfer from the United States, which in turn aids economic growth and development. This is certainly a positive benefit diasporas bring to their home countries. It is important to note, however, that a number of factors should be considered in the "brain drain" versus "brain gain" debate, for which I do not think there is a clear answer today.
Q: Where does China stand in relation to some of the classic tiger economies that we've seen in the past in terms of technology transfer?
A: Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and similar smaller economies have achieved a full transition from agriculture-based economies to industrialized economies. In those situations, technology transfer increases labor productivity and wages directly. The interesting thing about China and also India is that about half of their populations are still employed in the agricultural sector. In this scenario, technology transfer may lead to faster sector reallocation�workers moving from agriculture to industry�which can weaken wage growth compared with the classic tiger economy example. This is an interesting dynamic we see in China today.
Q: The export growth that technology may engender is only one prong of the mechanism that helps economic development. Does technology also make purely domestic industries more productive?
A: Absolutely. My research shows that countries do increase their exports in industries that receive large technology infusions, but non-exporting industries also benefit from technology gains. Moreover, the technology transfer can raise wages in sectors that do not rely on technology to the extent there is labor mobility across sectors. A hairdresser in the United States, for example, makes more money than a hairdresser in China, and that is due in large part to the wage equilibrium that occurs across occupations and skill categories within an economy. Technology transfer may alter the wage premiums assigned to certain skill sets, for example, increasing the wage gaps between skilled and unskilled workers, but the wage shifts can feed across sectors through labor mobility.
Q: What are the implications for the future?
A: Historically, the United States has been very successful at the retention of foreign-born, Ph.D.-level scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs. As China and India continue to develop, they will become more attractive places to live and to start companies. The returnee pattern may accelerate as foreign infrastructures become more developed for entrepreneurship. This is not going to happen over the next three years, but it is quite likely over the next thirty to fifty years. My current research is exploring how this reverse migration would impact the United States' rate of progress.
About the author
Michael Roberts is a senior lecturer in the Entrepreneurial Management unit at Harvard Business School.
The Immigrant Technologist:
Studying Technology Transfer with China
Q&A with: William Kerr and Michael Roberts
Published: January 22, 2007
Author: Michael Roberts
Executive Summary:
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain? Professor William Kerr discusses the phenomena of technology transfer and implications for U.S.-based businesses and policymakers.
The trend of Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs staying home rather than moving to the United States is a trend that potentially offers both harm and opportunity to U.S.-based interests.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S. and are strong contributors to American technology development. It is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group.
U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries, around 15 percent today. U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain?
Q: Describe your research and how it relates to what you observed in China.
A: My research focuses on technology transfer through ethnic scientific and entrepreneurial networks. Traditional models of technology diffusion suggest that if you have a great idea, people who are ten feet away from you will learn about that idea first, followed by people who are 100 miles away, and so forth in concentric circles. My research on ethnic networks suggests this channel facilitates faster knowledge transfer and faster adoption of foreign technologies. For example, if the Chinese have a strong presence in the U.S. computer industry, relative to other ethnic groups, then computer technologies diffuse faster to China than elsewhere. This is true even for computer advances made by Americans, as the U.S.-based Chinese increase awareness and tacit knowledge development regarding these advances in their home country.
Q: Is your research relevant to other countries as well?
China is at a tipping point for entrepreneurship on an international scale.A: Yes, I have extended my empirical work to include over thirty industries and nine ethnicities, including Indian, Japanese, Korean, and Hispanic. It is very important to develop a broad sample to quantify correctly the overall importance of these networks. The Silicon Valley Chinese are a very special case, and my work seeks to understand the larger benefit these networks provide throughout the global economy. These macroeconomic findings are important inputs to business and policy circles.
Q: What makes technology transfer happen? Is it entrepreneurial opportunity in the home country, a loyalty to the home country, or government policies that encourage or require people to come home?
A: It's all of those. Surveys of these diasporic communities suggest they aid their home countries through both formal business relationships and informal contacts. Formal mechanisms run the spectrum from direct financial investment in overseas businesses that pursue technology opportunities to facilitating contracts and market awareness. Informal contacts are more frequent�the evidence we have suggests they are at least twice as common�and even more diverse in nature. Ongoing research will allow us to better distinguish these channels. A Beijing scholar we met on the trip, Henry Wang, and I are currently surveying a large population of Chinese entrepreneurs to paint a more comprehensive picture of the micro-underpinnings of this phenomena.
Q: What about multinational corporations? How do they fit into this scenario?
A: One of the strongest trends of globalization is that U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries. About 5 percent of U.S.-sponsored R&D was done in foreign countries in the 1980s, and that number is around 15 percent today. We visited Microsoft's R&D center in Beijing to learn more about its R&D efforts and interactions with the U.S. parent. This facility was founded in the late 1990s, and it has already grown to house a third of Microsoft's basic-science R&D researchers. More broadly, HBS assistant professor Fritz Foley and I are working on a research project that has found that U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals like Microsoft help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Q: Does your research have implications for U.S. policy?
A: One implication concerns immigration levels. It is interesting to note that while immigrants account for about 15 percent of the U.S. working population, they account for almost half of our Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers. Even within the Ph.D. ranks, foreign-born individuals have a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, elections to the National Academy of Sciences, patent citations, and so forth. They are a very strong contributor to U.S. technology development, so it is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group. It is one of the easiest policy levers we have to influence our nation's rate of innovation.
Q: Are countries that send their scholars to the United States losing their best and brightest?
A: My research shows that having these immigrant scientists, entrepreneurs, and engineers in the United States helps facilitate faster technology transfer from the United States, which in turn aids economic growth and development. This is certainly a positive benefit diasporas bring to their home countries. It is important to note, however, that a number of factors should be considered in the "brain drain" versus "brain gain" debate, for which I do not think there is a clear answer today.
Q: Where does China stand in relation to some of the classic tiger economies that we've seen in the past in terms of technology transfer?
A: Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and similar smaller economies have achieved a full transition from agriculture-based economies to industrialized economies. In those situations, technology transfer increases labor productivity and wages directly. The interesting thing about China and also India is that about half of their populations are still employed in the agricultural sector. In this scenario, technology transfer may lead to faster sector reallocation�workers moving from agriculture to industry�which can weaken wage growth compared with the classic tiger economy example. This is an interesting dynamic we see in China today.
Q: The export growth that technology may engender is only one prong of the mechanism that helps economic development. Does technology also make purely domestic industries more productive?
A: Absolutely. My research shows that countries do increase their exports in industries that receive large technology infusions, but non-exporting industries also benefit from technology gains. Moreover, the technology transfer can raise wages in sectors that do not rely on technology to the extent there is labor mobility across sectors. A hairdresser in the United States, for example, makes more money than a hairdresser in China, and that is due in large part to the wage equilibrium that occurs across occupations and skill categories within an economy. Technology transfer may alter the wage premiums assigned to certain skill sets, for example, increasing the wage gaps between skilled and unskilled workers, but the wage shifts can feed across sectors through labor mobility.
Q: What are the implications for the future?
A: Historically, the United States has been very successful at the retention of foreign-born, Ph.D.-level scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs. As China and India continue to develop, they will become more attractive places to live and to start companies. The returnee pattern may accelerate as foreign infrastructures become more developed for entrepreneurship. This is not going to happen over the next three years, but it is quite likely over the next thirty to fifty years. My current research is exploring how this reverse migration would impact the United States' rate of progress.
About the author
Michael Roberts is a senior lecturer in the Entrepreneurial Management unit at Harvard Business School.
tattoo efore and after
newcomer
07-11 10:37 PM
Good one. Could also add the IV logo on it
more...
pictures 1 Make-up Miracles: Before and
waiting_4_gc
01-18 01:54 PM
Great idea. We are getting another opportunity to meet with our NorCAL IV members.
I am in.
Can someone PM me with more info about this event?
I am in.
Can someone PM me with more info about this event?
dresses Here are some efore and after
Ψ
06-06 11:33 AM
well iam trying to seduce u .....i likje the girl.........she looks hot........the next oneis going to be hotter....just watch
more...
makeup stars efore and after makeup.
diptam
06-10 07:41 PM
I'm confused - Everyone who has a 140 is supposed to have a Labor and very likely that will be more than 365 days old. So why do anyone need 140 approval in that sense ?
The reason i'm getting nuts for 140 approval because i can't safely switch to a EAD or get a Longer duration H1B ( 3 yrs after 140 approval). I'm in major Limbo with some other folks at NSC for last 13 months just for a EB3(140) - My friends got approval in 6-8 months from TSC or if its a EB2(140) at Nebraska.
See my other post asking ideas to break this stalemate.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=19534
You do not qualify for this at least according to the above statement. You do not need 140 approved for h extension. You will automatically get the h extension based on the fact that you labor was filed 365 days prior to your H expiration. This is for folks who need 140 approved for H extension
The reason i'm getting nuts for 140 approval because i can't safely switch to a EAD or get a Longer duration H1B ( 3 yrs after 140 approval). I'm in major Limbo with some other folks at NSC for last 13 months just for a EB3(140) - My friends got approval in 6-8 months from TSC or if its a EB2(140) at Nebraska.
See my other post asking ideas to break this stalemate.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=19534
You do not qualify for this at least according to the above statement. You do not need 140 approved for h extension. You will automatically get the h extension based on the fact that you labor was filed 365 days prior to your H expiration. This is for folks who need 140 approved for H extension
girlfriend stars efore and after makeup.
dvb123
02-13 01:08 PM
Kiss your green card dream goodbye
hairstyles stars efore and after makeup.
dollar500
08-02 11:39 PM
....bump.....
Ann Ruben
03-29 08:06 PM
Yes, if the I-140 has been approved, your brother is entitled to use the 2007 PD on any subsequent I-140.
lecter
January 6th, 2005, 09:40 AM
Here's the thrid in my "tryptich"
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/15HL2C9752-old_lady_pole-III-med.jpg
waddaya think?
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/15HL2C9752-old_lady_pole-III-med.jpg
waddaya think?
No comments:
Post a Comment