Will PACE apply to current PhD/doctoral candidates?

[helpful_leo]

The bill seems to apply to future PhD candidates who will come on an "F4" visa. Will current PhD candidates who will graduate on an F1 visa be similarly able to adjust status after 1 year of employment? If it does not, the potential benefits will be seen only after 4-6 years, which is when new candidates on an F4 visa will be getting their PhDs!

Also, are these clauses applicable to PhDs in the life sciences? The actual language seems to talk about the "physical sciences", which I think excludes the biological sciences/ biotech, one of the areas of greatest advancements in recent and future years!

Interested individuals should contact lawmakers about these points and have them amend it!

[helpful_leo]

What is the process of suggesting amendments to bills under consideration to lawmakers, e.g. the amendments to PACE suggested in my previous post- can I call/e-mail/fax all sponsors/lawmakers or can I only contact specific lawmakers (those of my area)? Any suggestions will be welcome!

[spgtopper]

Helpful_leo

I want to answer to your question (or rather help you to get one)....

just want to make sure we are referring to same link to the PACE bill etc.

Pl. tell me if you are reading from this link
http://www.compete.org/pdf/PACE_sect...20final%20.pdf
or if it is something else pl. post it here.

Also, it would be great if you point me to a specific section of the bill that you are particularly interested in knowing about.

About your other question:
A general answer is: yes, you may contact your own senators, and congressman (as they are most likely to read your mail). However, I must warn you that one person alone doing anything is not going to be that effective. It is much better if you team up with a group like ours (Immigration Voice) to make your voice heard. IV is presently focussing on the comprehensive immigration reform bill, but if you present your case here we'll see if and what can be done.

S.

[logiclife]

Originally Posted by helpful_leo

The bill seems to apply to future PhD candidates who will come on an "F4" visa. Will current PhD candidates who will graduate on an F1 visa be similarly able to adjust status after 1 year of employment? If it does not, the potential benefits will be seen only after 4-6 years, which is when new candidates on an F4 visa will be getting their PhDs!

Also, are these clauses applicable to PhDs in the life sciences? The actual language seems to talk about the "physical sciences", which I think excludes the biological sciences/ biotech, one of the areas of greatest advancements in recent and future years!

Interested individuals should contact lawmakers about these points and have them amend it!

If they do implement a new F4 visa, they will allow you to transfer to F4 status I believe. And then current PhDs would be getting the benefit of the new law. Its unlikely that biological science are not a part of physical sciences. What they mean when they say "Physical" sciences is that other sciences like Tom Cruise's scientology and stuff like astrology/palmistry and other fake science is not included as a field in which one could do PhD and obtain GC.

[ragz4u]

Originally Posted by logiclife

If they do implement a new F4 visa, they will allow you to transfer to F4 status I believe. And then current PhDs would be getting the benefit of the new law. Its unlikely that biological science are not a part of physical sciences. What they mean when they say "Physical" sciences is that other sciences like Tom Cruise's scientology and stuff like astrology/palmistry and other fake science is not included as a field in which one could do PhD and obtain GC.

Watch what you say! We might have Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah's couch cursing ImmigrationVoice for a post like this ;-)

[helpful_leo]

thanks guys for your responses

Spgtopper: I am referring to the same bill; specifically section 313. Its a bill that covers a lot of specific details, but seems to ignore current PhD candidates.

Logiclife: Wikipedia and others define "the physical sciences" to exclude life sciences. That is actaully the meaning of physical sciences, i.e. not biological sciences. It would seem stupid to exclude it, since so much of R&D is taking place in biotech etc.
And I believe if they wd have allowed the transfer of F1 to F4, they wd have mentioned it in teh bill. I think the above 2 facts have to be brought to the attention of lawmakers.

[helpful_leo]

spgtopper:

I am trying to draft a letter that specifically addresses the above 2 concerns in the PACE bill. Not including current PhD graduates in it will delay any potential benefits from this part of the bill on retrogression by 5-8 years, which is when new PhD graduates joining on F4 will graduate (the current PhD candidates will otherwise use up EB1 and EB2 numbers through their employers.)

Excluding life sciences again would reduce the benefit on retrogression by ~60% than otherwise, bcos > 60% international PhD students (may be closer to 80%) are in the biological sciences (most students in other fields try to do a Masters and then look for a job.)

I would welcome if IV could publicize this aspect of the PACE bill and the need to amend it.

[spgtopper]

helpful_leo,

I really appreciate your urge and energy for this. We need more and more people like you as volunteers.

I read section 313. I agree with logic life. You should have the ability to transfer to F4.

It is not fair to assume that the legislation is not favourable for "current" students. Does it clearly say that? No. So, don't assume either way.

If you want to be very sure, you can call your senator's and congressman's office (of those who endoresed/creeated the bill), and talk to a person handling immigration matters or specifically this bill. Confirm your belief/assumptions and then write letters etc.

Meanwhile, see if this helps:

313: "Creates a new "F-4" student visa for doctoral candidates studying in the fields of..."

The word new refers to the visa and NOT the student. And, "studying" in implies current students. :-)

So, what is the problem?

S.