Anne Hathaway Catwoman

Intresting topic in NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/us/31elder.html?_r=1&em

Is there a chance to attach SKIL provisions towards higher degree GC retrogressed applicants to this appropriation efforts?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898

Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis

In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.

They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.

The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.

Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).

Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."

The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.

Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.

Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.

Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."

Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."

Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.

Tech firms warn of impacts of tight visa quota - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tech-firms-warn-of-impacts-of-tight-visa-quota-2011-04-07?siteid=rss&rss=1)

The problem is most of the visas are taken by indian bodyshops such as infosys, TCS, LT to bring underskilled computer operators to the US. Intel, MS and other good companies that hire from reputed US universities have hard time getting the visas due to the cap. The cap should work the other way round. 20K for bodyshops and 65K for people from US universities.

I think he mentioned 2005 fee as the fee for I-485 in 2005 (old fee structure). Not the check date of 2005. Let him clarify.
Just wondering, a 2005 check is a very valid check. A check with future date is not valid for cashing immediatly. This may be invalid if the lawyer didnt had the account in 2005.

I applied for renewal on May 19th. My EAD expires on August 23. So, I guess I'll have to follow your renewal process to see if mine will arrive in time.

If I renew my H1B can I avoid visa stamping by using the AP travel document.

I still intend to use my H1B as long as I stay with my current employer, but If I want to change employers or take a different job EAD would be the way to go, in that case would my H1B be invalidated?

I am concerned if I use EAD for a future job and 485 gets into trouble can I fall back to my H1B easily?


Thanks to all for the responses.

Thank for the reply. I hope the suggestions will be acted on and implemented at the earliest. It's frustrating to see that the priority dates haven't moved by a single day in last 6 months, something really needs to be done and I will do my support IV with anything.

Thanks for your commitment...if you are frustrated by no movement in 6 months then imagine the plight of folks on this forum who have no priority date movement since Jan 2002 (9 years and counting)....most of them have literally became dormant with the long wait and some of them have become cynical and skeptical of the entire process and quite frankly about IV...it's hard to motivate and make them commit to supporting IV. There are few brave souls who refuse to give up and are fighting for the greater benefit of the entire community!

Understood, I fully concur and if we remain on focus and on target with the message regarding legal immigrants we will get there. I will play my part by sending the reporter an email (as an individual incase the core has something in mind).

I am waiting to sign up for the monthly.

I don't think it is a good idea to restrict members by the amount they contribute. As we already know we only have around 200 members that actually contribute financially out of the 7K membership.

We are a grassroots organization we need all the foot solders we can get (remember how effective it was in December, when we mobilized together). Restricting users would turn members away and when we loose them, we loose them for good. There will not be any references from those who leave.

Remember Howard Dean's fund raising campaign mostly they collected $10 and $20 not just big amounts for his presidential campaign. We must take what we can and encourage members to participate. When members see what we do they will volunteer.

A first time visitor to our website is not going to trust us to give money with out knowing what we are all about. When we restrict them they will never know what we are doing.

Just think about it. Would you do it?

This is EXACTLY the confusion. My case is explained below:

1. I am on H1-B - havent used my EAD yet
2. My wife has and is currently using her EAD though
3. We filed I-140 (NIW) and I-485, concurrently for both of us in July 2007.

So what happens to our I-485's and her EAD? My attorney says she should be alright (legally and work eligibility wise) till we appeal and get the final decision. But we are hearing different things at these forums. So really not sure...

Ideas? Suggestions? Examples?

Thanks,

Card Production Order. I saw this message on I- 765 application on-line check.
hope this help.

No problem with expired i-94. Just inform them about I-485 filing. I did it without any problem.

Do you guys see any issues if I-94 is expired but I-485 application is pending and the petitioner is working on EAD? Any thoughts will be appreciated. Thanks,

This is a very useful thread!

Has anyone tried using the multiple mask technique to expand dept of field rather than (or in addition to) dynamic range? Might have to soften the edge of the mask but in principle it should work, using one photo set to near focus and the other to infinity. Obvioiusly a tripod would be essential. For non-manual focus lenses one could toggle the infinity focus on/off.