An Incredible Article by Intel's Craig Barrett - Repost.

Dear Readers,

Below I wanted to repost an Article written by Craig Barrett, Chairman of Intel Corp, published in the Washington Post. I couldn't have said it better.

The direct link is: http://tinyurl.com/3cammo

Read below:

Best,

p

_________________________________

By Craig Barrett
Sunday, December 23, 2007; B07



The European Union took a step recently that the U.S. Congress can't seem to muster the courage to take. By proposing a simple change in immigration policy, E.U. politicians served notice that they are serious about competing with the United States and Asia to attract the world's top talent to live, work and innovate in Europe. With Congress gridlocked on immigration, it's clear that the next Silicon Valley will not be in the United States.

European politicians face many of the same political pressures surrounding immigration as their U.S. counterparts, and they, too, are not immune to those pressures. Nationalist and anti-immigrant factions in several Western European countries have made political gains in recent elections and are widely viewed as mainstream. Despite the hot-button nature of immigration issues, though, E.U. politicians advanced the "Blue Card" proposal in late October.

The plan is designed to attract highly educated workers by creating a temporary but renewable two-year visa. A streamlined application process would allow qualified prospective workers to navigate the system and start working in high-need jobs within one to three months.

This contrasts starkly with the byzantine system in place in the United States, which increasingly threatens America's long-term competitiveness.

The United States relies primarily on two programs to augment its workforce with highly educated, highly skilled foreign professionals. The H-1B visa is a three-year temporary visa that can be renewed once. The employment-based (EB) green card is the program for permanent residency. Both programs serve the needs of U.S. employers seeking to fill job vacancies in highly skilled professions. Extreme shortages of visas in both these programs are well documented.

H-1B visas, which are capped at 85,000 per year, are now gone in one day, with the "winners" determined by lottery.

The EB green card program has an annual allotment of 140,000 visas; these are allocated equally across all countries around the world, regardless of population. The inflexible country quotas mean that professionals from countries such as China and India are almost always at a disadvantage, finding themselves stuck in a system -- often for five to 10 years -- in which they cannot seek promotions and raises. Spouses and children count against the quota, which has not been raised since 1990. And even though they count against the quota of foreign workers allowed to come here, spouses are inexplicably forbidden to work, no matter their level of education and skill.

The U.S. system forces thousands of valuable foreign-born professionals -- including badly needed researchers, scientists, teachers and engineers -- into legal and professional limbo for years. Not surprisingly, many are considering opportunities in competitor nations -- even those who have lived in the United States for years and have graduated from American universities.

To be competitive in the global economy, U.S. companies depend on specialized talent coming out of U.S. graduate schools. These scientists and engineers are often foreign-born, as more than half of U.S. engineering master's students and PhD recipients are international students. Yet America shuts the door on many of these highly educated graduates, forcing them to look abroad for opportunities -- and our competitors are capitalizing on our failed policies.

E.U. leaders recognize that the top minds coming out of universities in the United States and other countries can help to reinvigorate European industry and enable it to create the next wave of businesses that drive innovation and economic growth.

While its Blue Card proposal still requires approval by member countries, Europe has sent a message. It intends to aggressively pursue the professional talent necessary to compete on the global stage. The United States, on the other hand, seems intent on driving away the very same talent the European Union is rolling out the red carpet to welcome.

The writer is chairman of Intel Corp., which employs about 2,000 employees with H-1B visas among its 86,000 workers worldwide.



© 2007 The Washington Post Company

The Presidential Candidates: Why they don’t care about Immigration?

Dear Readers,

This is a simple and straightforward question. And the answer is quite simple. No. Why?

First and foremost, non-citizens don’t vote. Although President Bush sought the Hispanic vote for the Republican party by pushing comprehensive immigration reform, he didn’t come to grips with or understand the ability of ‘anti-immigrant’ advocates and radio/tv personalities to mobilize people to want the deportation of 20 million illegals. They also appealed to the “we must shut down our borders immediately” types. Except for Nativists such as Patrick Buchanan who want a “pure” America, few are against legal immigration - but most voters in the country are willing to wait to deal with our broken system until the problem of illegal immigration has been handled; of course, few seem to understand that the solution of illegal immigration inevitably involves and is tied to “comprehensive reform”, that is, taking away the incentive to come here illegally.

All that said, why are our politicians against even talking about immigration? The answer is simple. I’ve been practicing immigration law, mostly on the employment-based side, for over 25 years. Our economy and this anti-immigration wave of rhetoric are tied together. When good, immigration is off the table, when we are in a recession, or the economic realities are perceived in trouble by citizens, then “here it goes again”. Nothing really changes. Each time we are in a down cycle, recession or not, we look for a scapegoat. Immigrants are that scapegoat. Many years back it was the Jews who emigrated from Eastern Europe, the Italians, the Irish during that same time period. Ellis Island and all that. Now it is the low skilled Mexicans crossing the border in search of jobs, as well as the Indian and Chinese H-1b Engineers needed here in Silicon Valley. Besides the refrain “They are taking our jobs!”, I now hear “Terrorists”. It is McCarthyism all over again.

Again, how does this answer the question? You got it! Yes, immigrants, legal and illegal, don’t vote. Politicians have one major job, and that is to get re-elected (and they think of that all the time). And that is why you hear virtually nothing about immigration from them. They don’t want to lose. Period.

King for a Day: An Immigration Solution

Let's say I became King. What would my immigration policy be?

First, I would not shut down the border, build a fence, nor stop issuing visas to students, tourists, investors, or others. I would likely increase technology and personnel.

More importantly, I would instantly fund, then finish or develop an employer verification and ID system.

Next, I would advise everyone in the country, legal and illegal, permanent residents - "green card holders" and non-immigrants alike, that they have 3 months to sign up for the new ID/verification system and smart card. For US citizens who do not have a new 'smart' passport, or a new smart driver's license, they too must obtain a new ID/verification card - but we might give them a longer time to do so.

Why would anyone 'sign up' and be issued one of these cards? Well, if one is a legal resident or non-immigrant, they'd have no choice - lose their status or be removed. For illegals, this would be their "last chance" to not be removed (in the next phase). Those that do come forward, would not be rewarded with a 'green card', but would be eligible for a smart driver's license, the ability to obtain employment, and have 10 years to find a way to lawfully become a permanent resident and then U.S. citizen, that is, "get in line". Of course, to be eligible for the progam, they must not have been convicted of a serious, or in my mind, any crime, and must agree to learn English. That is, they must have generally behaved themselves. In extraordinary cases where bona fide spouses might be separated, and/or there are U.S. children involved (in an intact family) waivers should be possible for minor past criminal activity. Aggravated or multiple felons, sexual predators, or violent criminals, however, should not under any circumstance be granted waivers.

The concept above is not amensty, it is about cleaning up the present mess, and even more importantly identifying those that will not or cannot sign up and those that enter after a 'sign up' period (for which there will be a huge 'outreach' to make certain everyone in the country is aware of this last opportunity). Of course, those that do not identify themselves will obviously be those that cannot.

Phase two will involve the issuing of IDs, documenting the millions who have behaved (but did indeed enter illegally for work, or did fall into an undocumented status - but otherwise have been good residents), deploying the employer verification system, and identifying and removing everyone else.

This last part of phase two, enforcement, will utilize not only the resources and reach of the Federal government, but local governments too. The computer and verification systems deployed with employers will also be tied into local police, state, city and other administrative entities (IRS, banks, SSA, Highway Patrol, etc.) as well.

I envision those entering the US as non-immigrants in the future (with the intent to depart) to check in at kiosks with their smart ID and then do so periodically so that they can continue their lawful status, that is, be a foreign student or visitor. If these temporary visitors do not 'check in', they would have their status automaticaly cancelled, and they would be subject to removal.

OK, what about those who do 'get in' (across the border, or do not check in), which is inevitable, and end up in the underground economy or just disappear here?

First, we'll also be constructing a new and better immigration system that will make sense and be realistic to the needs of our economy and business interests. To this end, we'll need a "guest worker program", which will help stem the tide of illegal entry. There is no question that cheap labor is necessary in a successful economy such as ours. For those that don't use the system, or overstay, or enter illegally, or don't go home when they should, they'll more easily be caught and removed - for example, being picked up by local police or the highway patrol. Yes, fewer people will be able to remain "under the radar".

Oh yes, our future lies in innovation, new industries and technologies, so why not make it easy for the world's "best and brightest" to come here (and stay).

Worried about 'Big brother'? It is already here if you have a credit card, buy gas, etc. Should there be oversight to prevent abuses? Of course.

Well, that's my plan. Love to hear about yours.

IMMIGRATION DEBATE: A DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY MEMBER..

I want to spend a few minutes writing about the state of the converstion about immigration in this country, and why, essentially, the debate is non-existent.

As most people know, immigration is a political 'hot potato'. For those that don't
understand this term, it is a child's game where no one wants to hold the "hot" potato very long or they'll get burned, and therefore does his/her best to hand it off to someone else. Few politicians, and I don't know any, want to talk about this issue - either legal or illegal immigration.

Well, what now?

Is it likely that anyone will actually take hold of the hot potato and run with it? Can it be politically clever or smart to do so? I believe it can. Let me explain.

I think it can be brought up if talked about in the right way, in a rational way.

Recently, I wrote a question and sent in a video for the CNN Youtube debate. It wasn't picked - granted I turned it in at the last second, but I thought maybe it had a chance anyway. It was clearly a difficult, pointed, and provocative question that no journalist would ever have the fireballs to ask, but this format cleverly gave cover to such aquestion.

My question was..

Why don't you, and all your fellow Republican candidates, digitally fingerprint and take photo IDs of everyone in the country, legal and illegal, who are not U.S. citizens, issue a smart card/ID to them, thus allowing us to separate and isolate the "good" from the "bad" - and the go after the bad, first? That is, if we immediately create immediately on such a program, only the good would be entired to come forward, leaving the bad naked, exposed, and more easily focused on (and deport). With our limited resources, what would be the harm in approaching this problem in an intelligent way, I asked?

If my question were chosen and asked, I dreamed, it would expose the silliness, the uselessness of the present debate, both in Republican and Democratic circles, and we could actually move on as country to a solution.

I thought 'The Question', if directly asked of them, would shock the politicians into actually thinking, and force a national debate. It would leave behind the idiotic rhetoric, the pure demogaguery that fills our airways and broadcasts now.

Since I could foresee it coming, my video asked the Republican debaters,
specifically, not to talk about Amnesty, because I wasn't speaking to that, nor do I support it.

Anyway, that question was just the tip of the immigration iceburg, so there's much more to say later.


_______________________________
Paul M. Heller, Esq. (Founder/Principal)

Heller Immigration Law Group, LLP
2479 E. Bayshore Rd., Suite 709
Palo Alto, CA 94303

A Silicon Valley-based law firm specializing in employment-based immigration, for corporations seeking fixed monthly retainer fee arrangements.

Toll-Free: 1/800 863-4448; Local: 1/650 424-1900; Int'l: 1/650 424-1900; Fax: 1/415 276-9099

Email: heller@hilglaw.com; www.hilglaw.com (formerly: greencard1.com)

Heller Blog: blog.hilglaw.com

YM: paulhilg

Barack Obama: Hillary & Bill Clinton, Oprah Winfrey....

Thinking about Barack Obama and the Clintons today, here are my thoughts. First, Hillary Clinton, as well as the former President look old, very old. I think about Communist China, and an election in the future, after democracy takes hold. A former official, a leader, runs for office, maybe several, but there are also some new people on the scene, much younger, inspirational, lighter. Who would get elected? Who would electrify the crowd, the masses? No one in the scenario questions that the new person would sweep the elections. People, whether in this future vision of China, or here now, know that we are 'tired' of the old guard, and want a change. Anyone but.... Looking at it with this perspective, even venerable and beloved Bill Clinton looks old and tired. And Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton! Both are desperate, trying to hold on to a past long gone - Bill, with a weight loss that is long to late, Hillary, with her desperation tactics. "So long Bill, so long Hillary, we love you!"


_______________________________
Paul M. Heller, Esq. (Founder/Principal)

Heller Immigration Law Group, LLP
2479 E. Bayshore Rd., Suite 709
Palo Alto, CA 94303

A Silicon Valley-based law firm specializing in employment-based immigration, for corporations seeking fixed monthly retainer fee arrangements.

Toll-Free: 1/800 863-4448; Local/Int'l: 1/650 424-1900; Fax: 1/415 276-9099

Email: heller@hilglaw.com; www.greencard1.com

Heller Blog: blog.hilglaw.com

YM: paulhilg

Are you LinkedIn?

Dear readers,

If you haven't heard of it already, LinkedIn is a wonderful networking site for business professionals. I've found it very useful for building business relationships and would be happy to link to you.



P

_______________________________
Paul M. Heller, Esq. (Founder/Principal)

Heller Immigration Law Group, LLP
2479 E. Bayshore Rd., Suite 709
Palo Alto, CA 94303

A Silicon Valley-based law firm specializing in employment-based immigration, for corporations seeking fixed monthly retainer fee arrangements.

Toll-Free: 1/800 863-4448; Local: 1/650 424-1900; Int'l: 1/650 424-1900; Fax: 1/415 276-9099

Email: heller@hilglaw.com; www.hilglaw.com (formerly: greencard1.com)

Heller Blog: blog.hilglaw.com

YM: paulhilg

The Best and Worst Clients: A Lawyer's Perspective

mThis article may be the most important one among all the pieces I have written so far. In this article, I’d like to tell the readers a secret - what kind of client will receive the best service from his/her lawyer and therefore most likely secure a successful outcome? Although all lawyers have different personalities and working styles, there are general guidelines to being a good client as there are rules of thumb for being a good lawyer. In a modern society, everyone is likely to require legal services at least once, if not, more. I hope this article will help the readers to become a better client and receive better service at no additional cost.

Although lawyers are engaged in providing professional services in exchange for monetary compensation, they are also human beings, and they will, as in any human relationship, work harder for people and cases they care about. I am a lawyer and have been a client of other lawyers as well. I understand both perspectives. A client, after working with his/her lawyer, may feel lucky to have found such a competent lawyer and may other times feel it was a disastrous decision to retain that lawyer and wishes to replace him/her. The same goes for the lawyer. A lawyer may find one client a pleasure to represent and another a nightmare.

Choosing the right lawyer and deciding to represent a client both take good judgment. The first thing to look for is the lawyer’s specialty. Ask for referrals and try to locate lawyers in the specialization you want, visit his/her website, look up the business listings, etc. Second, try to find a lawyer that is not only experienced but also one that is responsive and easy to work with by talking to them on the phone if you are able. Lawyers, who are not available to talk to you initially, generally will not have a lot of time for you even after you retain them. More often that not, this unavailability is more style than substance. Often times, through the first few phone conversations, even without a face-to-face consultation, one can learn if the lawyer is competent to deal with your situation, talks to you substantively, and if s/he seems trustworthy as a person. We all have the ability to perceive something about another, a second sense. Also, remember, as you are screening for a good lawyer, the lawyer may be screening you. Lawyers do not have to take all the cases, and good lawyers are even more selective about what cases they take on given their limited time.

Once you have chosen a lawyer for your case, and he/she has chosen you, keep an open and honest dialogue and keep your lawyer informed of all the changes in your situation. Discuss all your concerns as early as possible, and follow instructions promptly. Don’t give your lawyer the impression that just because you paid him/her you are entitled then to simply lay your problems at the feet of the lawyer and he/she is now responsible to solve your case without your help. Remember that your lawyer is there to guide you and help lead you to the resolution of the matter; do not assume and expect that the lawyer will create and generate required documents and evidence for you. The client is responsible for providing all the facts and materials so that his/her lawyers can have the best and most accurate picture of the circumstances and then represent the client to their best ability.

Clients that are difficult to represent and seem to complicate their situation even more include those who wait too long before seeking professional help; those who reveal facts selectively; and those who fight against the lawyer’s advice. In all these cases, the clients themselves are likely to damage their own case more than what has already happened. In doing so, they will not only cause a delay in problem resolution but also lose respect from their lawyer.

I find that good clients work with the lawyer and help resolve even the most difficult cases successfully, and relatively painlessly, and that bad clients make the most straightforward cases difficult to complete. Once a mutually respectful relationship has been established, your lawyer will try to go out of his/her way to help you. I personally lose sleep over my clients’ cases and sometimes even dream of a perfect solution. Each and every time I obtain a successful resolution of a client’s matter, I feel the greatest reward for my career. I have experienced many lawyer-client relationships evolving into very pleasant and mutually beneficial professional relationships. I hope all the readers will learn to choose a good lawyer, be a good client, and obtain a successful outcome by establishing a positive and trusting relationship with their lawyers.

The information provided throughout the Website is general in nature and may not apply to any particular set of facts or circumstances. It should not be construed as legal advice and does not constitute an engagement of Heller Immigration Law Group, LLP, or establish an attorney-client relationship.

Questions or comments, visit our site at hilglaw.com or email us at comments@hilglaw.com