|News articles and reports News articles, op-eds, reports on issues of immigration.|
||LinkBack||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
This week, we had an article about immigration voice published in India Abroad. It is published only in the printed version and does not show online.
If any member could send me the scan of the article we can put it up on the site for everyone to see.
Last edited by pappu; 10-10-2006 at 11:46 AM.
Focusses on the H1 part but mentions the SKIL bill too
This June, there’s one important piece of paper that many of the international students of Harvard’s Class of 2007 will not be graduating with: an H-1B visa. As Harvard’s graduates prepare to enter the workforce, for the 10 percent that come from oversees, a diploma will not be enough; they need an H-1B visa to grant them permission to stay and use their degree to perform high-skill jobs in the United States. While their peers look forward to their month of freedom before heading to Wall Street, international students anxiously wait to see if they’ll even be allowed to stay and work at all in the country where they’ve lived and worked for the past four years.
Congressionally-mandated restrictions force many of the nation’s most qualified workers out of the U.S. market before they even enter it. By allowing these restrictions to continue, the U.S. is not only harming these newly-minted graduates, but is robbing the U.S. skilled labor market of many of its most willing and able young professionals. With elections on the horizon, we hope that a lame duck Congress will act on legislation that will expand on the U.S.’s H1-B visa program.
The number of individuals granted H-1B status is capped at 65,000 annually. Acquiring an H-1B visa requires proof of graduation from college and a sponsoring U.S. employer, and allows the individual to work in the United States for up to six years. Thousands of international students in the U.S. are turned down every year, as Congress effectively shuts the door on many of the world’s brightest young minds, eager to contribute to the U.S. economy by living and working high-skill jobs in the nation in which they were educated.
Graduation dates at many colleges in the U.S. make attaining an H-1B especially difficult, because by the time students can provide proof of graduation, the quota is likely to be filled. This was the issue facing Harvard students last year, as the quota for H-1Bs was filled on May 26 (about two weeks before graduation), leaving many international Harvard students intending to work in the U.S. up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
One glimmer of hope for these students is the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program, which allows international students to work in the U.S. for up to twelve months without a visa. However, OPT is not the lifesaver it appears to be: Not only can foreigners only seek jobs related to their field of study, but the months students have spent working during their college summers are subtracted from the months allotted to them by OPT. A student from abroad who has chosen to work all three summers for three months each comes into the OPT program after graduation with only three more months left in their allowance.
Further, since H-1B visas take effect at the beginning of October, students working in the U.S. with the yearlong OPT extension are left with a four-month void during which they cannot work. A class of 2007 graduate could work through OPT until June 2008 and apply for an H-1B in the spring, but would be left without a legal means to be employed from June 2008 until October.
Recent college graduates are not the only people adversely affected by the current H-1B policy, although their ordeals are the most immediate. The U.S. economy as a whole is also stunted by the cap. With current labor shortages in Silicon Valley and the southern California aerospace industry, and a low unemployment rate of 4.6 percent in September 2006, the U.S. is hardly overflowing with high-skill people out of work. Since the number of foreigners allowed to perform specialty occupations is not capped out of reasonable concern for national welfare, it is a protectionist measure that ends up telling many of our country’s hardest working specialists: “Go home.”
The U.S. economy is strong largely because of its ability to attract and retain highly skilled scientists and engineers from abroad. The use of H-1B visas is the main vehicle U.S. employers have to bring in foreign workers from abroad, and the limited influx of high-skilled foreign labor hurts the economy and undermines the U.S. focus on technology.
The SKIL (Securing Knowledge, Innovation, and Leadership) Bill, introduced by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), is aimed at promoting economic competitiveness and growth by increasing the number of H-1Bs granted annually from 65,000 to 115,000 and doubling the length of OPT eligibility. However, this bill has been held up in Congress since June because it is coupled with the stalled comprehensive immigration reform bill. Congress ought to immediately decouple this bill in order to pass it, benefiting the U.S. and skilled workers from abroad. This is an issue of bipartisan agreement, unfortunately wedded to a messy partisan nightmare.
Beyond the inconveniences posed to individual college students, the implications of allowing the SKIL Bill to remain uncoupled and ergo, un-passed, are much more far-reaching. The U.S. should not be a factory for churning out skilled workers and then shipping them back overseas. Instead, we should be a nation that cultivates knowledge and the paradigm of efficient use of intellectual resources. We should culture and house the world’s bright young minds, not merely process them. To maintain a policy that ignores the United States’ history of intellectual pursuit and covets jobs for its citizens is regressive, and will ultimately prove detrimental to those it sets out to protect.
where did you find this article. pls quote its URl and the reporter's name with contact details if available.
Skill Bill and Pascrell's H.R. 4378 Bill
The Programmers Guild Calls on Congress to include U.S. Worker Protections in the Pending SKIL Bill H-1b Visa Legislation
The current H-1b visa cap of 65,000 would never be reached if this guest-worker program were reformed to limit its use to those cases where no qualified U.S. workers are available and close the loopholes that legally permit the underpayment of market wages. Congressman Pascrell’s H.R. 4378 would provide those reforms.
(PRWEB) October 10, 2006 -- The SKIL Bill (Securing Knowledge Innovation and Leadership - S.2611) was introduced by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX). Co-sponsors include senators George Allen (R-VA), Wayne Allard (R-CO), Robert Bennett (R-UT), Michael Enzi (R-WY), and Trent Lott (R-MS). The SKIL Bill would create a floating H-1b cap that could flood nearly 1.5 million H-1b guest-workers into the U.S. tech job market over the next seven years.
Recent studies by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and IEEE demonstrate that the current H-1b program does not protect U.S. workers. “It is legal to sponsor H-1b workers even when qualified U.S. workers are available,” according to Kim Berry, president of the Programmers Guild.
For example, in nearly every month from January 2001 through March 2006 the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) sponsored H-1b guest-workers to fill civil engineering positions, even though there were qualified U.S. candidates reachable on civil service exam lists. As of September 27, 2006, there were 87 top-ranked candidates on the Caltrans "transportation engineer (civil)" list.
Caltrans public information officer David Anderson explains that "Caltrans establishes hiring practices and policies for all its managers. Hiring foreign nationals with H-1b visas is consistent with these policies and practices." Thus while Governor Schwarzenegger advocates for guest-worker programs "when there are not enough U.S. workers," the policy of the State of California is to sponsor H-1B guest-workers even when qualified U.S. workers are available.
Another problem with the current H-1B program is that it allows employers to pay H-1b workers wages that are substantially below market wages. The September 30, 2006 Detroit News article "Do Visas Hurt U.S. Workers" found that all of the top 10 users of H-1b workers in Michigan paid them wages $12,000 to $26,000 below industry average. A study by the Programmers Guild made similar findings.
A key proponent of expanding the H-1B program under the SKIL Bill is the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). “It is not that law offices have trouble hiring technical staff, but rather that displacing U.S. workers represents a $100,000,000 industry for AILA,” according to Berry. Currently, AILA is providing boilerplate letters in support of the SKIL Bill and encouraging its members and their clients to send them to Congressmen.
“The H-1b guest-worker program is fundamentally flawed,” according to Kim Berry, president of the Programmers Guild. "Employers from state governments down to the smallest body shops hire H-1b workers in spite of a surplus of qualified U.S. workers, and pay them below market wages."
Another pending bill, Congressman Pascrell's H.R. 4378, the "Defend the American Dream Act of 2005" would remove the gaping loopholes which currently allow employers to underpay H-1Bs yet be in full compliance with the law. It would also require employers to first recruit U.S. citizens and permanent residents before they could sponsor H-1b workers. "If the provisions of the Pascrell bill were in effect, the current H-1B cap would be more than sufficient" according to Norm Matloff, Professor of Computer Science.
Accordingly, the Programmers Guild calls on Congress to implement the H-1b reforms in the Pascrell Bill as part of any other legislative changes to the H-1b quota.
“If the SKIL Bill passes without reforms to protect U.S. workers, 30% of U.S. tech workers may have their professions destroyed by a Congress that should be protecting the constitutional liberty interest of Americans to pursue their chosen profession,” according to Berry. “We fear that SKIL Bill passage will occur after hours as a Trojan horse by attaching it to a “must pass” omnibus appropriations bill, without any meaningful hearings on its consequences.”
The Programmers Guild advocates for the interests of U.S. computer programmers and other tech workers. The Guild supports Congressman Pascrell’s H.R. 4378, which would amend H-1B legislation to require employers to first recruit U.S. workers, along with other protections. See www.programmersguild.org for more information.
SKIL Bill – Bill to double the H-1B visa quota:
SKIL Bill Sponsors
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX): (202) 224-2934 – formerly an attorney
Senator George Allen (R-VA): (202) 224-4024 – formerly an attorney
Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO): (202) 224-5941 – formerly a Veterinarian
Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT): (202) 224-5444 – formerly a management consultant
Senator Michael Enzi (R-WY): (202) 224-3424 – formerly a computer programmer
Senator Trent Lott (R-MS): (202) 224-6253 – formerly an attorney
Pascrell Bill – Would add U.S. worker protections to H-1B:
AILA encouraging members to write congress in support of the SKIL Bill:
9/30/2006 The Detroit News “Do visas hurt U.S. workers?”
Caltrans LCAs for H-1b workers:
Caltrans Media Affairs
IEEE-USA: “Reports, Studies Shatter Myth that H-1B Visa Holders
are Paid Same Wages as U.S. Citizens”
The above article link: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/10/prweb448167.htm
Last edited by arnet; 10-10-2006 at 01:27 PM.
article in the economist
The battle for brainpower
Oct 5th 2006
From The Economist print edition
Talent has become the world's most sought-after commodity, says Adrian
Wooldridge. The shortage is causing serious problems
IN A speech at Harvard University in 1943 Winston Churchill observed
that “the empires of the future will be empires of the mind.” He might
have added that the battles of the future will be battles for talent.
To be sure, the old battles for natural resources are still with us.
But they are being supplemented by new ones for talent—not just among
companies (which are competing for “human resources”) but also among
countries (which fret about the “balance of brains” as well as the
“balance of power”).
The war for talent is at its fiercest in high-tech industries. The
arrival of an aggressive new superpower—Google—has made it bloodier
still. The company has assembled a formidable hiring machine to help it
find the people it needs. It has also experimented with clever new
recruiting tools, such as billboards featuring complicated mathematical
problems. Other tech giants have responded by supercharging their own
talent machines (Yahoo! has hired a constellation of academic stars)
and suing people who suddenly leave.
But a large and growing number of businesses outside the tech
industry—from consulting to hedge funds—also run on brainpower. When
the Corporate Executive Board (CEB), a provider of business research
and executive education based in Washington, DC,
recently conducted an international poll of senior human-resources
managers, three-quarters of them said that “attracting and retaining”
talent was their number one priority. Some 62% worried about
company-wide talent shortages (see chart 1). The CEB
also surveyed some 4,000 hiring managers in more than 30 companies, and
was told that the average quality of candidates had declined by 10%
since 2004 and the average time to fill a vacancy had increased from 37
days to 51 days. More than one-third of the managers said that they had
hired below-average candidates “just to fill a position quickly”. The
CEB found, too, that about one in three employees had recently been
approached by another firm hoping to lure them away.
Can't get enough of it
All this brings back memories of the dotcom boom in the late 1990s,
when management consultants were writing books such as “The War for
Talent” (by Ed Michaels, Helen Handfield-Jones and Beth Axelrod of
McKinsey), telling companies that they must move heaven and earth to
recruit and promote the best talent. No sooner had the bubble burst
than many former masters of the universe were begging for work.
Indeed, companies do not even know how to define “talent”, let alone
how to manage it. Some use it to mean people like Aldous Huxley's
alphas in “Brave New World”—those at the top of the bell curve. Others
employ it as a synonym for the entire workforce, a definition so broad
as to be meaningless.
Nor does stocking up on talent seem to protect companies from
getting it spectacularly wrong. Enron did everything that Mr Michaels
and his colleagues recommended (indeed, McKinsey was both a consultant
and a cheerleader for the Houston conglomerate). It recruited the best
and the brightest, hiring up to 250 MBAs a
year at the height of its fame. It applied a “rank-and-yank” system of
evaluation, showering the alphas with gold and sacking the gammas. And
it promoted talent much faster than experience. Another corporate
disaster, Long-Term Capital Management, was even more talent-heavy than
Enron, boasting not only MBAs but Nobel
prizewinners among its staff. But despite all this talent, the
companies still succumbed to greed and mismanagement.
The coming shortage
Clearly there is more to good management than hiring the best and
the brightest. Among other things, it requires rewarding experience as
well as talent, and applying strong ethical codes and internal
controls. Indeed, talent-intensive businesses have a particular
interest in maintaining high ethical standards. Whereas in
manufacturing industries a decline in such standards is often slow, in
talent-intensive ones it can be terrifyingly sudden, as Arthur Andersen
and Enron found to their cost.
All the same, structural changes are making talent ever more
important. The deepest such change is the rise of intangible but
talent-intensive assets. Baruch Lev, a professor of accounting at New
York University, argues that “intangible assets”—ranging from a skilled
workforce to patents to know-how—account for more than half of the
market capitalisation of America's public companies. Accenture, a
management consultancy, calculates that intangible assets have shot up
from 20% of the value of companies in the S&P 500 in 1980 to around 70%
McKinsey makes a similar point in a different way. The consultancy
has divided American jobs into three categories: “transformational”
(extracting raw materials or converting them into finished goods),
“transactional” (interactions that can easily be scripted or automated)
and “tacit” (complex interactions requiring a high level of judgment).
The company argues that over the past six years the number of American
jobs that emphasise “tacit interactions” has grown two and a half times
as fast as the number of transactional jobs and three times as fast as
employment in general. These jobs now make up some 40% of the American
labour market and account for 70% of the jobs created since 1998. And
the same sort of thing is bound to happen in developing countries as
they get richer.
A second change is the ageing of the population. This will be most
dramatic in Europe and Japan: by 2025 the number of people aged 15-64
is projected to fall by 7% in Germany, 9% in Italy and 14% in Japan.
But it will also make a difference to China, thanks to its one-child
policy. And even in America, where the effect will be less marked, the
retirement of the baby-boomers (which has just started) means that
companies will lose large numbers of experienced workers over a short
period. RHR International, a consultancy,
claims that America's 500 biggest companies will lose half their senior
managers in the next five years or so, when the next generation of
potential leaders has already been decimated by the re-engineering and
downsizing of the past few decades. At the top of the civil service the
attrition rate will be even higher. This means that everyone will have
to fight harder for young talent, as well as learning to tap (and
manage) new sources of talent.
At the same time loyalty to employers is fading. Thanks to all that
downsizing, the old social contract—job security in return for
commitment—has been breaking down, first in America and then in other
countries. A 2003 survey by the Society for Human-Resource Management
suggested that 83% of workers were “extremely” or “somewhat” likely to
search for a new job when the economy recovered.
As well as becoming more footloose, the workforce is becoming less
standardised. Today employees come in all shapes and sizes. Some 16% of
American workers telecommute some of the time. A quarter of the staff
at B&Q, a British DIY
chain, are over 50; the oldest is 91. And these diverse workers are
often part of a global supply chain that keeps going 24 hours a day.
Managers not only need to deal with lots of different sorts of people,
but also to manage workers in different countries and often across
different functions. That means even more competition for people with
up-to-date management skills.
Obsession with talent is no longer confined to blue-chip companies
such as Goldman Sachs and General Electric. It can be found everywhere
in the corporate world, from credit-card companies to hotel chains to
the retail trade. Many firms reckon that they have pushed
re-engineering and automation as hard as they can. Now they must raise
productivity by managing talent better.
With opportunities at home running dry, the hunt for talent has gone
global. Over the past decade multinational companies have shipped
back-office and IT operations to the
developing world, particularly India and China. More recently they have
started moving better jobs offshore as well, capitalising on high-grade
workers with local knowledge; but now they are bumping up against
talent shortages in the developing world too.
Even governments have got the talent bug. Rich countries have
progressed from simply relaxing their immigration laws to actively
luring highly qualified people. Most of them are using their
universities as magnets for talent. India and China are trying to
entice back some of their brightest people from abroad. Singapore's
Ministry of Manpower even has an international talent division.
The dark side
Competition for talent offers many benefits—from boosting
productivity to increasing opportunities, from promoting job
satisfaction to supercharging scientific advances. The more countries
and companies compete for talent, the better the chances that geniuses
will be raked up from obscurity.
But the subject is strewn with landmines. Think of the furore that
greeted Charles Murray's and Richard Herrnstein's book “The Bell
Curve”, which argued that there are differences in the average
intelligence of different racial groups; or the ejection of Lawrence
Summers as president of Harvard University because he had speculated
publicly about why there are so few women in the upper ranks of
It would be wonderful if talent were distributed equally across
races, classes and genders. But what if a free market shows it not to
be, raising all sorts of political problems? And what happens to
talented Western workers when they have to compete with millions of
clever Indians who are willing to do the job for a small fraction of
This survey will argue that the talent war has to be taken
seriously. It will try to avoid defining talent either too broadly or
too narrowly but simply take it to mean brainpower—the ability to solve
complex problems or invent new solutions. It will thus focus on what
Peter Drucker, the late and great management guru, called “knowledge
workers”. But there is no point in being dogmatic. The nature of
critical talent varies from company to company: it may be the ability
to crack a few jokes while turning an aeroplane around in 25 minutes,
as demonstrated by Southwest Airlines. It is one of the marks of a
sophisticated society that it rewards a wide variety of different
survey will conclude by looking at the widening inequalities that will
result from the competition for talent, and weighing up the risks of a
backlash against the talent elite.
Sources and acknowledgments
Oct 5th 2006
From The Economist print edition
The author is grateful to the following organisations for sharing
their expertise on this subject: Harvard Business School, McKinsey,
Boston Consulting Group and Deloitte. He owes a particular debt to
Peter Freire and his colleagues at the Corporate Executive Board.
books proved especially helpful: “Flight Capital: the Alarming Exodus
of America's Best and Brightest”, by David Heenan; and “Competing for
Global Talent”, edited by Christiane Kuptsch and Pang Eng Fong.
“Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education”, by William Bowen,
Martin Kurzweil and Eugene Tobin, University of Virginia Press, 2005.
“The Rise of the Creative Class: And how it’s Transforming Work,
Leisure, Community and Everyday Life”, by Richard Florida, Basic Books, 2002.
“Workforce Wake-up Call”, edited by Robert Gandossy, Elissa Tucker and
Nidhi Verma (Hewitt Associates), John Wiley & Sons, 2006.
“Flight Capital: The Alarming Exodus of America’s Best and Brightest”,
by David Heenan, Davies-Black Publishing, 2005.
“The New Geography: How the Digital Revolution is Reshaping the
American Landscape”, by Joel Kotkin, Random House, 2000.
“Competing for Global Talent”, edited by Christiane Kuptsch and Pang
Eng Fong, International Institute for Labour Studies, 2006.
“Aligning The Stars: How to Succeed when Professionals Drive Results”,
by Jay Lorsch and Thomas Tierney, Harvard Business School Press, 2002.
“The 86% Percent Solution: How to Succeed in the Biggest Market
Opportunity of the Next 50 Years” by Vijay Mahajan and Kamini Banga, Wharton,
“The Company: A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea”, by John
Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, Modern Library, 2003.
“Free Agent Nation: How America’s New Independent Workers are
Transforming the Way We Live“, by Daniel Pink, Warner Books, 2001.
“Overcoming the Challenges in China Operations”, Boston Consulting
Group and Wharton.
“Attracting and Retaining Critical Talent Segments: Building a
Competitive Employment Value Proposition”, Corporate Leadership Council
2006-2007 Executive Retreats.
“It’s 2008: Do you Know where your Talent is?”, by Deloitte Research,
“The CEO’s Role in Talent Management: How Top Executives from Ten
Countries are Nurturing the Leaders of Tomorrow”, Economist Intelligence
“Emerging Global Labour Market”, McKinsey Global Institute, 2005.
“International Mobility of the Highly Skilled”, OECD, 2001.
“The Divergence of Human Capital Across Cities”, by Christopher Berry
and Edward Glaeser, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper
11617, September 2005.
“GE’s Talent Machine: The Making of a CEO”, by Christopher Bartlett and
Andrew McLean, Harvard Business School, Case 9-304-049, 2005.
“The 21st-Century Organisation”, by Lowell Bryan and Claudia Joyce,
McKinsey Quarterly 2005, Number 3.
“The University and the Creative Economy”, by Richard Florida, Gary
Gates, Brian Knudsen and Kevin Stolarick, 2006.
“Leadership Development at Goldman Sachs”, by Boris Groysberg and Scott
Snook. Harvard Business School, Case 9-406-002, 2006.
“General Electric’s 20th Century CEOs”, by Nitin Nohria, Anthony Mayo
and Mark Benson, Harvard Business School, Case 9-406-048, 2005.
To buy reprints:
To listen to audio interview with the author:>
Science 6 October 2006:
Science 6 October 2006:
Vol. 314. no. 5796, p. 31
Hopes for Innovation Bill Rest on Lame-Duck Congress
Members of Congress left town last week to campaign for reelection with
little to show from a yearlong push for legislation aimed at bolstering
U.S. competitiveness. But rather than being depressed, science
advocates are hoping that the best is yet to come. The cause of their
optimism: Senate leaders last week introduced a sprawling, bipartisan
bill that would authorize $20 billion in new spending over 5 years to
strengthen science and math education and expand federal research
programs. Advocates hope the Senate will pass the measure, dubbed the
American Competitiveness and Innovation Act, when Congress returns for
a lame-duck session after the 7 November election. But persuading the
House to approve a comprehensive innovation bill before the end of the
year could be difficult. A different and much slimmer version has been
languishing there for more than 3 months.
Last week, five influential lawmakers appealed to the community for
help in getting the job done, appearing separately during a 1-day
meeting at the National Academies that turned into an impromptu pep
rally. "We need you to talk to your elected officials, and to the
president, and tell them to support this bill," declared Senator Lamar
Alexander (R-TN). The meeting marked the first anniversary of the
publication by the academies of a widely acclaimed report--from a panel
chaired by Norman Augustine and entitled Rising Above the Gathering
Storm--that shaped the Senate bill (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423).
A strong lineup. From left, NAS President Ralph
Cicerone, Norman Augustine, NAE President Bill Wulf, and Senator Lamar
Alexander enjoy the National Academies' convocation on competitiveness.
CREDIT: MARTY KATZ
It should be an easy sell, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) told the 600
university and corporate research leaders. "It's rare to get people on
both sides of the aisle and on both sides of Capitol Hill to be singing
from the same hymnal," said Bingaman, one of 32 co-sponsors of S. 3936,
introduced 26 September by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and
his Democratic counterpart, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. "But that's
the case with this topic and this bill."
"This bill contains almost all of the recommendations in the academies'
report, and we're ready to move on it," proclaimed Senator Pete
Domenici (R-NM), chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
He proudly ticked off provisions that would authorize doubling the
budget for the National Science Foundation over 5 years, doubling the
budget for the Department of Energy's Office of Science over 10 years,
and a slew of programs to train better science and math teachers and to
attract more students into science, technology, engineering, and math
Then he added a caveat. "I also lead one of the appropriations
subcommittees--Energy and Water--that has to fund a lot of what is in
this bill, and we don't have money for everything. I have promised to
do it by taking money from other areas. But I don't know if I will be
able to hold on in upcoming negotiations with the White House and my
colleagues. So I'm going to close my eyes and do my best."
Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), who chairs the House Science
Committee, was equally candid about the hurdles in the House. Boehlert,
whose retirement this fall after 24 years in Congress will further
drain an already shallow pool of moderate House Republicans, has pushed
unsuccessfully for floor debate on two bills that would expand existing
research and education programs, H.R. 5356 and H.R. 5358, which in June
cleared his committee. "Our bill includes a lot of what's in the
report," he said, "but, unfortunately, the bill has been stalled by a
handful of conservative members who don't want to see any new spending
and by some ideological forces in the White House. And the House
leadership hasn't been willing to move it ahead." On the bright side,
however, Boehlert said that the existence of a Senate bill, after
months of wrangling over its content, improves the odds that "we will
be able to work something out during the lame-duck session."
That postelection session poses its own problems. Beyond clearing
must-pass spending bills and other legislation left over at the tail
end of the 2-year congressional term, legislators must reconcile the
House and Senate bills. Although they share the same party affiliation,
Representative Boehlert and Senator Alexander don't exactly see eye to
"I'd like to see a more streamlined version [of the 209-page Senate
bill]. They need to set some priorities," says Boehlert. "The Senate
bill doesn't have a prayer in the House. But I think we can pass
something once we come to our senses."
For his part, Alexander predicts that S. 3936 "will go through the
Senate quickly" once the Senate reconvenes on 14 November. "Then, the
House could just pass our bill, and we'd be done." He also offered some
not-too-subtle advice about winning over House Speaker Dennis Hastert
(R-IL), whose district includes Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.
"Suppose one of you lives in a district that contains a national lab
and which happens to be represented by the Speaker of the House,"
Alexander said to laughter from the audience. "Maybe you could make a
for discussion go to
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1969 (Contacting media and Article in the economist and Science)
Good Article that value skill immigrant
Experts tout immigration as key to Canada's talent search
Does this contain our provisions? I think this is just for expanding federal research programs.
Colin Powell: 'Open borders to skilled immigrants'
Semiconductor Industry Association...
Semiconductor Industry is the leading indicator of American Economy. The President of Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) George Scalise has been vocal about increasing Research funding at American Universities, reforming the education system here and also for reforming the immigration laws. Attached pdf is from SIA website:
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests)|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|DC RALLY - NEWS Thread||H1bslave||Sept 18th Rally: Car-pooling, Group Reservations for Air travel, hotel etc.||93||08-08-2012 09:36 AM|
|News Article Thread - 3||WaldenPond||News articles and reports||437||12-13-2010 11:22 AM|
|News Article Thread - 2||logiclife||News articles and reports||1290||06-01-2007 08:12 AM|
|IV featured in News Observer: a New and Exhaustive News Article!||learning01||IV Agenda and Legislative Updates||1||04-12-2006 01:56 PM|
|Breaking News - Hearings postponed until March 27th - more details in thread||ragz4u||Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins||31||03-18-2006 06:40 PM|